נתיאש הימנה ולא גדרה‎—He abandoned it and did not rebuild it OVERVIEW The ברייתא states that if the בעל הכרם abandons the rebuilding of the wall, then the produce acquires the status of כלאים and is אסור‎. In addition the בעל הכרם is liable for damages. It seems from the ברייתא that both the איסור כלאים and the liability of the בעל הכרם are dependent on the 'נתיאש הימנה'. Otherwise if he is still trying to rebuild the wall then it will not become כלאים, and obviously there is no liability. It is not clear why the איסור כלאים depends on the 'נתיאש'. Concerning the חיוב to pay, it is understood that as long as he is trying to repair the damage we cannot hold him responsible; he is doing all he can. However concerning the איסור כלאים, that should be independent of his 'נתיאש'. If it was הוסיף מאתיים it should become כלאים, regardless whether he was נתיאש or not. תוספות will clarify this issue. -------------------------------- דוקא נתיאש אבל לא נתיאש ועוסק כל שעה לגדור אף על פי שהוסיף מאתים מותר‎ – It becomes כלאים only specifically when he abandoned all efforts to rebuild the wall – however if he did not give up and he is continually occupied in rebuilding the wall even though that a two hundredth was added to the growth of the produce in the duration, the produce is permitted to be eaten. There is no איסור כלאים even if הוסיף מאתיים‎ – כדתנן במסכת כלאים (פרק ה' משנה ו') הרואה ירק בכרם‎ – As we learnt in a משנה in מסכת כלאים one who sees a vegetable in a vineyard which is considered כלאים if they are growing close together – ואמר כשאגיע לשם אלקטנו הוסיף מאתים מותר‎ – And he said, ‘when I will arrive there, I will gather it’; the דין is that even if it grew an additional two hundredth, by the time he arrived to harvest it, nevertheless it is permitted. There is no איסור כלאים‎. On the other hand, if he said instead – לכשאחזור אלקטנו הוסיף מאתים אסור‎ – When I shall return (from whatever he intended to do then) then I will gather it, then the דין is if it added a two hundredth during this interlude, the produce is prohibited. It has the status of כלאים‎. This concludes the quote from the משנה in כלאים‎. אלמא כשהוא מחזר אחר לקיטתו אפילו הוסיף מאתים מותר‎ – It is apparent that when he is pursuing to gather the vegetable (as soon as possible) even if מאתיים was added during his pursuit of harvesting it, it is nevertheless permitted. The question is, what difference is there whether he is pursuing to rid his vineyard of כלאים or not. Seemingly it should depend only on whether it was הוסיף מאתיים or not. תוספות explains: והטעם יש לפרש משום דכתיב (דברים כב) לא תזרע כרמך כלאים דומיא דזריעה דניחא ליה: The reason for this דין may be explained; for it is written in the תורה do not plant כלאים (in) your vineyard. This teaches us that the איסור of כלאים needs to be similar to planting. This similarity consists that just like by planting it is obvious that he is pleased with his planting כלאים, for otherwise he would not plant the כלאים‎. Similarly, when כלאים is growing in one’s field, it becomes prohibited only when there is a certain satisfaction that it is growing. SUMMARY The פסוק states לא תזרע כרמך כלאים‎. We derive from this that the איסור כלאים is only when one is pleased with the כלאים growth; as is the case when one plants כלאים‎. Where one demonstrates that he is not satisfied with the כלאים growth, it is not כלאים‎. This explains why as long as the בעל הכרם is involved in repairing the wall there is no איסור כלאים‎. Similarly when one is going directly to uproot כלאים, it does not become כלאים, regardless how much it grew in the duration. THINKING IT OVER Seemingly even if the בעל הכרם was נתיאש it should not become כלאים, since the בעל התבואה is not happy with the situation.
וחייב באחריותו‎—And he is liable for its responsibility OVERVIEW The משנה in מסכת גיטין states: If one is מטמא another’s טהרות (for instance תרומה) thus rendering it worthless (for it needs to be burnt), the rule is that if he did it בשוגג he is פטור, however במזיד he is חייב‎. This is different than regular damages, where one is liable whether it was בשוגג or במזיד‎. The גמרא there explains that legally (התורה מן) he is פטור in all cases since this is a היזק שאינו ניכר‎ – an unrecognizable damage. There is no physical change to the טהרות‎. It does not appear to us as if the טהרות have been damaged. A היזק שאינו ניכר is not considered a היזק‎. If it was done במזיד, however, the חכמים punished the perpetrator in order to prevent people from wantonly damaging other people’s טהרות‎. Our case of כלאים seems to be a היזק שאינו ניכר‎. Why is he חייב‎?! תוספות will discuss this issue. ----------------------------- תוספות anticipates the following difficulty: אף על גב דהיזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק (גיטין נג, א) – Even though that an unrecognizable damage is not considered a damage – תוספות responds: נראה לרבינו יצחק דהאי חשיב היזק ניכר‎ – The ר"י is of the opinion that this case of כלאים is considered a recognizable damage – שהרי ניכר הוא שהוא כלאים כשרואה הגפנים בשדה‎ – For it is obvious that it is כלאים when one sees the grapevines in the grain field. It is known that grape vines and grain growing together are כלאים and אסור בהנאה‎. Therefore when one sees the כלאים he observes (in his mind’s eye) damaged and worthless produce. The damage is obvious and recognizable. תוספות anticipates a question: ומטמא אף על פי שרואין השרץ על הטהרות‎ – And concerning one who defiles the purified products (טהרות) of another, that is considered היזק שאינו ניכר in all instances even when the dead שרץ is seen on the טהרות, nevertheless it is considered a ניכר שאינו היזק‎. Seemingly there too it is obvious to all, that these טהרות are טמא since there is a שרץ on them. What is the difference between כלאים which is considered a היזק ניכר and מטמא which is considered a ניכר שאינו היזק‎? תוספות responds that by טהרות‎ – לא חשיב היזק ניכר דמי יודע אם הוכשרו – It is not considered a היזק ניכר, even if one sees the שרץ on the טהרות‎. The reason is for who knows whether the טהרות are fit to become טמא‎. However by כלאים there are no such mitigating circumstances. In all cases it is כלאים‎. Therefore it is considered a היזק ניכר‎. תוספות anticipates an alternate solution to his question, and negates it: אבל אין לומר דהכא נמי הוי היזק שאינו ניכר‎ – However one cannot say the following to resolve the original question; why is he חייב‎? It is a היזק שאינו ניכר‎! Seemingly we may answer that indeed כלאים is also a היזק שאינו ניכר, and nevertheless he is חייב‎ – וקנסוהו כמו במטמא (שם) שלא יהא כל אחד הולך ומטמא טהרותיו של חבירו – Because the חכמים punished him, just as the חכמים punished one who is מטמא the טהרות of another. The reason for the punishment of מטמא is in order that no one should go and be מטמא his friend’s טהרות‎. תוספות negates this option: דהכא ליכא למיחש להכי שבעל הכרם נמי מפסיד‎ – For here by מחיצת הכרם there can be no such concern, that he will willfully cause the other’s crop to become כלאים, for the vineyard owner loses as well. His vines are also כלאים and אסור בהנאה‎. We are not concerned that a person will be so spiteful to damage someone else, when he himself is being damaged through this action. Therefore in our case of כלאים the חכמים would not have punished the בעל הכרם, for there is no concern of widespread vandalism; as opposed to טומאה‎. By טומאה the חכמים were concerned, for the perpetrator suffers no loss. תוספות offers another reason why the solution of קנס is inappropriate: ועוד אי קנס הוא במזיד דוקא היה לו להתחייב: And furthermore if the liability of the בעל הכרם is a punishment but it is not a real היזק he should be liable only if it was premeditated. A קנס is appropriate if the perpetrator acts in a premeditating and purposeful manner to harm the other. In our case of מחיצת הכרם, the איסור כלאים came accidentally; the wall fell in. The בעל הכרם did not want to make כלאים for the בעל השדה‎. There is no rationale to punish someone for an accident. For these two reasons we can therefore not accept this solution that it is a קנס‎. Rather the reason the בעל הכרם is חייב is because it is a היזק ניכר‎. SUMMARY כלאים is a היזק ניכר since it is obvious that the produce in this field (a mixture of grapes and grain) is אסור בהנאה‎. However טהרותיו מטמא is considered a היזק שאינו ניכר since it is possible that the food was never מוכשר לקבל טומאה; the presence of the שרץ notwithstanding. We cannot say that כלאים is a היזק שאינו ניכר and he is קנסא משום חייב because: a) There is no need for a קנס when the alleged perpetrator himself is being damaged as is the case by כלאים, and b) קנס is applicable only by מזיד; by מחיצת הכרם he was not a מזיד‎. THINKING IT OVER 1. Why does תוספות distinguish between כלאים and מטמא, that by כלאים it is always obvious? It would seem that by כלאים it is also not obvious because could be it is not ליה ניחא‎?! 2. What would be the דין if someone plants wheat in a neighbor’s vineyard; is he חייב or not?
ואימא מאי מחיצה פלוגתא‎—And I can say, what does מחיצה mean; a division OVERVIEW The גמרא originally interpreted מחיצה to mean a wall. After the גמרא showed that this is based on a ברייתא (and inferring from this translation that היזק ראיה לא שמיה היזק), the גמרא challenges this assumption and declares that מחיצה should mean a (property) division. There is seemingly no basis for this challenge; on the contrary the accepted translation of 'מחיצה' universally, is a wall. תוספות deals with this issue. ------------------------------ מפרש רבינו יצחק משום דעל לשון גודא יש כמה קושיות כדפריך בסמוך – The ר"י explains; because on the translation that מחיצה refers to a wall, there are many difficulties as the גמרא will shortly ask. The גמרא asks many questions on the interpretation that מחיצה means a wall. This interpretation of גודא requires us to assume that היזק ראיה לא שמיה היזק‎. The גמרא cites many sources which indicate that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק‎. לפיכך דוחק לפרש מחיצה פלוגתא אף על גב דבכל מקום הוי מחיצה גודא: Therefore, on account of these questions, the גמרא forces itself to awkwardly interpret the word מחיצה to mean a division, even though that everywhere the meaning of 'מחיצה' is a wall. It is preferable to compromise the literal meaning, and conform to all the cited sources, than having a proper translation but (seemingly) contradicting all the cited sources. SUMMARY The גמרא challenges the assumption that מחיצה means גודא‎. According to that assumption, we will maintain that היזק ראיה לא שמיה היזק‎. There are many sources which indicate that ה"ר שמיה היזק‎. Therefore it is preferable to interpret מחיצה to mean a division, thereby maintaining that; ה"ר שמיה היזק Even though this interpretation runs contrary to the usual interpretation of the word מחיצה‎. THINKING IT OVER 1. Why can we not say that the reason the גמרא wants to say מחיצה פלוגתא is because if מחיצה גודא then it should have said 'בונין אותו' instead of 'בונין את הכותל', as the גמרא asks? Or is this also included in the 'כמה קושיות', that תוספות refers to? 2. What does this תוספות teach us as to the relative strengths of כלל versus פרט‎?
וכיון דרצו בונין את הכותל בעל כרחו‎—And since they wanted, they build the wall against either one’s will OVERVIEW The גמרא proposed an alternate reading of the משנה‎. The word מחיצה is translated as a division, and the thrust of the משנה is as follows; once the partners agreed to divide the חצר, each can enforce building a dividing wall. Generally when people own something in partnership either party can independently dissolve the partnership and divide it. Why would there be a need for an agreement to divide the חצר‎. In addition, what is the relevance of this agreement to divide, to the teaching of our משנה‎? The משנה is ultimately concerned about the wall, not about the division! תוספות will address these issues. --------------------- לקמן מוקי לה כשאין בה דין חלוקה – Later the גמרא will interpret our משנה, which requires that they both must first agree to divide, and only then can one coerce the other to build a wall jointly; that our משנה is discussing a חצר where it is not legally enforceable to divide. תוספות asks: ותימה לרבינו יצחק דאמאי נקט תנא דמתניתין באין בה דין חלוקה וקתני רצו‎ – And the ר"י is perplexed; why does the תנא of our משנה discuss a case where it is not legally enforceable to divide, and therefore the תנא must state 'רצו' – they wanted to divide the חצר‎ – לא ליתני רצו ולאיירי בשיש בה דין חלוקה – The תנא should not state 'רצו' at all in the משנה and let the תנא discuss a case where there is a דין חלוקה‎! תוספות answers: ותירץ דקא משמע לן דסלקא דעתין בשאין בה דין חלוקה‎ – And the ר"י answered that the תנא comes to teach us something concerning the דין of building a כותל by a חצר שאין בה ד"ח for it may have entered our minds that by a חצר שאין בה דין חלוקה, if one originally agreed to divide but now refuses to build a wall – דמצי למימר כי איתרצאי לך לחלוק על מנת שלא לעשות גודא‎ – That he may say that when I agreed to you to divide the חצר שאין בה ד"ח, it was on the condition that there be no obligation to build a wall – אבל על מנת לעשות גודא לא איתרצי לך – But that we should divide on the condition to ultimately make a wall, I never agreed to you to divide under such circumstances. The משנה teaches us however, that once both partners agree to divide (even a ח"ד בה שאין חצר) then either one can coerce the other to build a wall jointly. ויש ספרים דמקשין ומתרץ כן להדיא בשילהי שמעתין: And there are texts of גמרות that clearly ask and answer this very same question at the end of the discourse. SUMMARY According to the לשון that מחיצה means division then the משנה is discussing a חצר שאין בה דין חלוקה‎. That is why their consent for division is necessary. The novelty of this דין is that neither can claim that my agreement to divide was based on the assumption that there will be no wall. THINKING IT OVER How are we to understand the א"הו that one party can claim I never agreed to a wall: Does it mean that therefore you have no claim against me and there will be no wall? Or does it mean that if you insist on the wall, the division is null and we go back to sharing the חצר together?
יתיב רב יוסף וקא מעיין בה‎—רב יוסף was sitting and contemplating it OVERVIEW The גמרא relates that איפרא הורמיז (the mother of שבור מלכא) sent a purse of דינרים to רב יוסף and instructed him to use it for a מצוה רבה (a great מצוה). רב יוסף was thinking what is a מצוה רבה and אביי told him that פדיון שבויים is a מצוה רבה‎. Our תוספות discusses the willingness of רב יוסף to do charity on behalf of a gentile, which seemingly is something that is frowned upon. ---------------------- תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וכי לית ליה ביבש קצירה תשברנה וגומר (ישעיה כז) כדאמרינן בפירקין (דף י, ב) – And if you will say; and does not רב יסף agree to the interpretation of the פסוק ביבש קצירה תשברנה, etc. as the גמרא states later in this פרק‎. How did רב יוסף consider using this money from a gentile for צדקה‎? – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דקבלה משום שלום מלכות כדעבד רבא לקמן (שם) – And one can say; that he accepted the money in order to keep the peace with the government, as רבא did (which is mentioned) later in the גמרא‎ – וכי היכי דפלגינהו רבא לעניי עובדי כוכבים הכא נמי פדה בהו רב יוסף שבויי עובדי כוכבים‎ – And just as רבא distributed the money received from איפרא הורמיז to the gentile poor, here too רב יוסף redeemed gentile captives with this money. תוספות offers an alternate approach: ומיהו לא צריכי להכי אלא כדפירש הקונטרס דרבא דקבלה משום שלום מלכות‎ – However it is not necessary to come on to this explanation that רב יוסף used the money for שבויי עכו"ם, but rather as רש"י explained that (רבא) [רב יוסף] accepted the money from איפרא הורמיז because of שלום מלכות‎ – וכיון שאמר לו ליתן למצוה רבה לא היה אפשר לחלקם לעניי עובדי כוכבים‎ – But since [s]he told רב יוסף to distribute it for a מצוה רבה it was not possible for him to divide it among עניי עכו"ם – דאסור לגנוב דעת הבריות ואפילו דעתו של עובד כוכבים (חולין צד, א) – For it is forbidden to fool people and even to mislead an עכו"ם. Therefore רב יוסף had no choice but to be פודה שבויי ישראל‎. אבל מעות המתחלקים לעניים אין כאן גניבת דעת‎ – However monies which are given to be distributed to the poor (as in the case of רב אמי ורבא later) there is no גניבת דעת if it is distributed to עניי עכו"ם (solely) – דאינהו נמי ידע שישראל רגילין לפרנסם‎ – For the gentiles also know that the ישראל are accustomed to sustain the עניי עכו"ם- כדאמר בהנזקין (גיטין דף סא, א) מפרנסים עניי עכו"ם עם עניי ישראל מפני דרכי שלום‎ – As the גמרא states in פרק הניזקין, we provide for the עניי עכו"ם together with עניי ישראל because of insuring the peace (between the עכו"ם and ישראל). תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דקבל מההוא טייעא דנדב שרגא לבי כנישתא בפרק קמא דערכין (דף ו, ב ושם דיבור המתחיל עד)- And that which we find in the first פרק of מסכת ערכין that they accepted from an Arab who donated candles for the synagogue – אף על גב דהתם לא היה שלום מלכות – Even though in that case there was no concern of שלום מלכות, so why did they accept it (there is the issue of ביבש קצירה תשברנה) – תוספות replies: התם טעמא משום דהוו כמו קרבן‎ – The reason they accepted it there because that donation was like a קרבן‎ – ואמרינן (נזיר סב, א) איש איש לרבות נכרים שנודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל: And the גמרא states that the פסוק of איש איש includes gentiles, that they too may offer pledges and gifts for קרבנות just like ישראל‎. SUMMARY One may accept money from an עכו"ם to distribute for צדקה (to עכו"ם) if it is for שלום מלכות‎. One may even distribute it for ישראל if otherwise it would be גניבת דעת (as in the case of מצוה רבה). Donations to a ביכנ"ס may be accepted from עכו"ם because it is like bringing a קרבן, which עכו"ם may do. THINKING IT OVER 1. According to the מסקנא of תוספות did רב יוסף redeem שבויי ישראל or שבויי עכו"ם‎? 2. Why did not רב יוסף redeem שבויי עכו"ם (if we he assume he was פודה שבויי ישראל)? 3. רש"י stated that רב יוסף could not have redeemed שבויי עכו"ם because it would be גניבת דעת‎. Seemingly, since איפרא הורמיז told רב יוסף to use the money for a מצוה רבה, if רב יוסף would have used it to be פודה שבויי עכו"ם (which is definitely not a מצוה רבה) it would be גניבה ממש, not merely גניבת דעת‎!
בונין את הכותל באמצע פשיטא‎—They build the wall in the middle; that is obvious! OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded the discussion concerning the מ"ד that מחיצה means a wall (negating the possibility that it means ‘to divide’). The גמרא then cites the משנה which states בונין את הכותל באמצע and asks: פשיטא‎! It may seem that this is a general question on the משנה, regardless whether we maintain that מחיצה is either גודא or פלוגתא‎. This view may be bolstered by the following גמרא, which challenges היזק ראיה שמיה לאו והיזק‎?! The גמרא continues to cite no less than six sources (identified by a preceding סימן) that contradict this view. This would seem to indicate that the questions on the מ"ד who maintains היזק ראיה לאו שמיה היזק, begin only at this point, and not by the previous question of פשיטא; which is a general question according to either opinion. תוספות will negate this view. ------------------------- למאן דאמר גודא פריך כמו כל הנך פירכי דלקמן – This question is (only) on the one who maintains that the word מחיצה in the משנה refers to a wall, just like all these questions mentioned further in our גמרא‎. תוספות will first explain why this question is valid according to the מ"ד that מחיצה is גודא: דכשהקנו לעשות גודא כך הקנה זה כמו זה ופשיטא דבאמצע‎ – For when they contracted to build a wall, it is obvious that that this one contracted to build the wall just as the other contracted to build a wall. And it is obvious that it must be built in the middle. תוספות will now explain why there is no difficulty according to the מ"ד that מחיצה means to divide. אבל למאן דאמר פלוגתא איצטריך למימר‎ – However according to the one that maintains that מחיצה means to divide, it is required that the משנה say so explicitly. For had the משנה not stated that they build it in the middle – סלקא דעתך אמינא דמשום היזק ראיה יש לו לסייע בבנין הכותל‎ – It would enter our minds to say, granted that on account of היזק ראיה, the reluctant partner is required to help in the building of the wall – אבל אין לו לבנות בחלקו בשביל כך: However he is not required on account of היזק ראיה to build the wall in his portion of the property. There was never a קנין between the two partners to build a wall (according to this מ"ד). We are obligating him to build a wall because he is (also) contributing to the היזק ראיה of his neighbor. We may argue (were it not for the משנה) that this obligation is limited to material but not space. The משנה therefore rightfully teaches us that היזק ראיה requires one to contribute space as well (even by a חלוקה דין בה שאין חצר). SUMMARY The question פשיטא is only according to the מ"ד that מחיצה is גודא‎. According to this מ"ד both partners contractually obligated themselves to build the wall (otherwise there is no obligation to build anything); it is therefore obvious that both have to give the space equally. The דין of בונין את הכותל באמצע is seemingly superfluous. However, according to the מ"ד that מחיצה פלוגתא there was never an agreement to build a wall; rather the partners are coerced to build it on account of היזק ראיה‎. Had the משנה not specifically told us that it must be in the middle, we would have given credence to the argument that היזק ראיה can only obligate one to pay for the expenses, but not to give up property. THINKING IT OVER How does the גמרא answer the קשיא of 'פשיטא'!; according to תוספות‎?
תא שמע וכן בגינה‎—Come and hear; and similarly by a garden OVERVIEW The גמרא cites from the משנה the case of 'וכן בגינה' to prove that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק, for the משנה says that by a גינה too, one must erect a מחיצה‎. However a closer reading of the משנה not only negates the proof, but may even prove the opposite. The משנה actually states וכן בגינה מקום שנהגו לגדור מחייבין אותו, indicating that the obligation to build a wall by a גינה is limited only to those places where the custom is to build dividing walls. This would indicate that where there is no prevailing custom, one is not required to build a wall. This would seem to indicate that היזק ראיה לאו שמיה היזק; the exact opposite of what we are trying to prove. תוספות will answer this question. ------------------------ לקמן מסקינן דהכי קאמר וכן בגינה סתם כמקום שנהגו לגדור דמי‎ – Later the גמרא concludes that this is what the משנה intended to say when it wrote 'וכן בגינה מקום שנהגו לגדור מחייבין אותו'; namely ‘and similarly, an unclassified garden; is like a place where the custom is to fence it’. The משנה states that a גינה סתם requires a wall just as a מקום שנהגו לגדור does. – הלכך דייק שפיר דהיזק ראיה שמיה היזק: Therefore it is a proper inference, from the statement וכן בגינה, that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק‎. SUMMARY The proof from וכן בגינה that שמיה היזק היזק ראיה is based on the conclusion of the גמרא, that when the משנה states וכן בגינה it means that a גינה סתם requires a dividing wall just as it is required in a מקום שנהגו לגדור‎. The requirement for a wall by a גינה סתם can seemingly only be on account of היזק ראיה‎. THINKING IT OVER 1. Is the word 'וכן בגינה' understood differently in the original interpretation of the משנה as opposed to the final interpretation as cited by תוספות‎? 2. What is the status of the חצר in our משנה; is it a מקום שנהגו לגדור, a מקום שנהגו שלא לגדור, or a חצר סתם‎? What would be the meaning of ''מקום שנהגו לבנות גויל וכו' mean?
גינה שאני כדרבי אבא וכולי‎—A garden is different; like רבי אבא, etc — OVERVIEW The גמרא teaches us that even if we maintain היזק ראיה לאו שמיה היזק, nevertheless under certain circumstances we are required to build a dividing wall. One such instance is the case of a גינה‎. The reason for building a wall in a גינה is to assure that we follow the injunction of ר' אבא, which prohibits a person from looking at his neighbor’s ripening crops. Seemingly this injunction applies to all crops, not only the crops of a גינה‎. In fact the injunction of ר' אבא specifically refers to a שדה and קמותיה which imply a wheat field that is usually found in a בקעה‎. Our משנה requires a wall by a גינה and not by a בקעה‎. Our תוספות will be discussing this question; why is the obligation to build a wall limited to a גינה and not to a בקעה‎? ------------------------- תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומהאי טעמא יתחייב נמי לגדור בבקעה – And if you will say; from this very same reasoning, one should be required to fence his adjoining property in a בקעה‎. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דשאני גינה שמגדלין בה ירק לאכילה וכל שעה היא עומדת בקמותיה – And one may say; that גינה is different from a בקעה, because in a גינה vegetables are grown for eating on a daily basis and a garden is continually bearing ripening produce – אבל בקעה אינה עומדת בקמותיה אלא חדש אחד בשנה ולא מיחייב לגדור‎ – However, a בקעה does not have ripening produce only one month a year and therefore he is not obligated to fence it. The damage that may be caused in that one month does not warrant the expense of a wall. אבל אסור לעמוד בשעה שעומדת בקמותיה‎ – However, one is indeed prohibited from standing and watching his neighbor’s field while the crops are ripening. The ruling of ר' אבא can be adhered to for such a limited time period. In the case of a גינה however, since there are crops on a continual basis, the injunction of ר' אבא will not be able to be followed unless there is a dividing wall. תוספות has an additional question: ואם תאמר ולמאן דאמר פלוגתא כיון דאשמועינן דאפילו בחצר שמיה היזק כל שכן בגינה‎ – And if you will say; according to the one who maintains that מחיצה refers to dividing the חצר, for he maintains that שמיה היזק ראיה היזק once the משנה taught us that even by a חצר (where there does not exist the prohibition of ר' אבא for usually nothing grows in a חצר), היזק ראיה is considered a היזק, then certainly by a גינה, where the prohibition of ר' אבא applies; there is certainly a היזק if there is no wall – ואמאי איצטריך תו למיתני וכן בגינה – So why is it necessary for the תנא of our משנה to teach us 'וכן בגינה'? תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאיצטריך וכן בגינה למיתני משום גויל וגזית: And one can say; that we need to be taught the case of 'וכן בגינה' on account of גויל וגזית; that he can be coerced to build the wall with גויל וגזית according to the מנהג המדינה‎. If the משנה would not have taught us 'וכן בגינה', we may have mistakenly assumed that any wall is sufficient, even if it is not כמנהג המדינה‎. SUMMARY A גינה requires a dividing wall (even if ה"ר לא ש"ה) because of the injunction of ר"א, since there is always produce growing in a גינה‎. However a בקעה does not require a wall since the crops are growing for only one month during the year. The person will be careful not to stare at his neighbor’s ripening crops. According to the מ"ד that ה"ר ש"ה the משנה teaches us the דין of 'וכן בגינה' to let us know that all the laws of גויל וגזית apply there as well. THINKING IT OVER 1. Is it possible to say that just as according to the מ"ד ה"ר לאו ש"ה nevertheless a גינה is different than חצר and requires a wall, similarly (but in a reverse manner) according to the מ"ד ה"ר ש"ה, a גינה is different than a חצר and does not require a wall (different than what תוספות assumes)? Explain. 2. Is there any connection between the first (קשיא and) תירוץ of תוספות and the second קשיא (and תירוץ)?
נפל שאני‎—It collapsed; that is different OVERVIEW The גמרא states that even according to the מאן דאמר that היזק ראיה לא שמיה היזק nevertheless if there originally was a dividing wall, which subsequently collapsed; both neighbors are obligated to rebuild the wall. תוספות will explain why there is a difference whether originally there was a wall or not. Seemingly if ה"ר לאו ש"ה there never should be an obligation to build (or rebuild) a wall! ------------------------------ תוספות explains: The reason they are required to rebuild the wall is – שהורגלו לעשות דבר הצנע בחצר ולא למדו ליזהר זה מזה: for the partners became accustomed to do private things in the חצר and they have not adjusted to be wary of each other. SUMMARY The היזק ראיה by a fallen wall is greater, since the neighbors are already accustomed to do much of their private work in the חצר‎. THINKING IT OVER 1. Explain why רש"י and תוספות reject each other’s interpretation of 'נפל שאני'. 2. What would be the נפק"מ לדינא between רש"י and תוספות‎?
ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה‎—And the one who cited this משנה, why did he cite it OVERVIEW The גמרא attempted to refute the מאן דאמר who maintains היזק היזק ראיה לא שמיה, from the משנה of כותל חצר שנפל, where we obligate them to build a wall. The גמרא negates this refutation by stating that all agree that if there was a wall previously, then they are obligated to rebuild it. This answer seems so obvious, that the גמרא challenged the original questioner. How did he think that he could refute the מ"ד of הרשל"ה from the משנה of נפל‎? Is he not aware that נפל שאני‎?! What was the question in the first place!? תוספות will, however, redefine the question of 'ודקארי לה מאי קארי לה'. ----------------------------- כלומר פשיטא דנפל שאני‎ – The גמרא means to say the following it is obvious that if the wall collapsed it is different, than if there never was a wall. All agree that if the existing wall collapsed he is required to rebuild it. Therefore not only can we not refute the opinion of the מ"ד who maintains that הרשל"ה, from this משנה of נפל‎ – ואדרבה היה לו להוכיח מדקתני ונפל מכלל דבעלמא לא שמיה היזק: but on the contrary the גמרא should have proven the exact opposite; that ה"ר לא ש"ה For since the משנה teaches us the obligation to build a wall in a case where the wall collapsed, it can be inferred that generally, when there is no previously collapsed wall, but rather when we discuss a חצר that never had a wall, then the היזק ראיה in a חצר is not considered damage; and he is not obligated to build a wall. SUMMARY The question לה קארי מאי לה ודקארי means that instead of attempting to prove from the משנה of 'הכותל נפל וכו, that ה"ר ש"ה, you should prove that ה"ר לא ש"ה since he is obligated only to rebuild a wall, not to build a new wall. THINKING IT OVER 1. What may be difficult with תוספות interpretation? 2. If the כותל חצר שנפל was in a חצר שאין בה דין חלוקה, can one coerce the other to keep the division and build a wall למ"ד הרש"ה‎? What bearing would the answer to this question have on תוספות פירוש‎?
הזיקא דרבים שאני‎—Damage caused by many is different OVERVIEW The גמרא attempted to prove that היזק ראיה לא שמיה היזק, from the משנה of 'כופין אותו וכו‎. The גמרא rejected this proof, and stated that in the case of 'בית שער וכו everyone agrees that the היזק ראיה there is שמיה היזק, since it is a היזק ראיה of a רבים‎. תוספות will discuss why indeed is it a היזקא דברים‎. ----------------------------- תוספות anticipates the following difficulty: ואף על גב דלקמן משמע דאיירי בחצר שאינה סמוכה לרשות הרבים – And even though it seems from the גמרא later that this particular משנה is discussing a חצר which is not nearby to the ה"ר. If the חצר is not סמוכה לרה"ר, why is there היזקא דברים‎. תוספות replies: מכל מקום איכא היזקא דרבים דזימנין דדחקי רבים ועיילי להתם כדאמרינן לקמן‎ – Nevertheless there is היזקא דברים for occasionally the multitude of people crowd the רה"ר and it is uncomfortable to walk in the רה"ר and they enter into the area near the חצר as the גמרא states later; even though it is not the רה"ר, people walk there nevertheless. That is why even by a שאינה סמוכה לרה"ר חצר, there can be היזקא דברים because of 'זימניו דדחקי וכו‎. תוספות anticipates the following question. This חצר is אינה סמוכה לרה"ר. רשב"ג maintains that it does not require a בית שער‎. We are not concerned about the public, since they are at a distance from the חצר‎. Why then does רשב"ג require the building of a door for the חצר‎? Seemingly there is no רבים on the outside to cause היזק ראיה‎. תוספות responds: ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל אף על גב דלית ליה האי טעמא דזימנין דדחקי רבים‎ – And רשב"ג even though he does not agree with this reasoning that occasionally the multitudes crowd the רה"ר and the people walk near the חצר‎. רשב"ג therefore maintains that a בית שער is not required for a חצר שאינה סמוכה לרה"ר. מכל מקום מרחוק יכולין לראות לפנים – Nevertheless, even though people remain at a distance from the חצר they can see, from afar, inside the חצר and cause היזק ראיה‎. ולכך לא פליג אלא אבית שער אבל בדלת מודה דכופין אותו לבנות: And therefore רשב"ג does not argue with the רבנן except for the case of a בית שער, however concerning a door for the חצר, even רשב"ג admits that the members of the חצר can coerce any individual of that חצר to participate in building the door. SUMMARY A חצר שאינה סמוכה לרה"ר is still subject to הזיקא דרבים, since זמני דדחקי בה רבים‎. A door however, is required even if we are not concerned for זמני דדחקי בה רבים since the בני רה"ר can look into the חצר from afar, if there is no door. THINKING IT OVER How can we understand that תוספות question on רשב"ג (why does he require a דלת), is not merely a question in order to understand the position of רשב"ג, but rather a way to prove that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק‎?
מאי לאו בכותל‎—Does that not mean with a wall OVERVIEW The גמרא attempts to refute the מאן דאמר היזק ראיה לא שמיה היזק, based on the משנה of אין חלוקין‎. The גמרא assumes that the term חולקין indicates dividing by means of a wall. We infer from the משנה that if it is a חצר שיש בה דין חלוקה then the דין is חולקין‎. That proves that the initiator can compel his partner to build a wall – ה"ר ש"ה. תוספות will challenge this refutation. Even if we assume that חולקין means with a wall, it does not necessarily prove that ש"ה ה"ר. ---------------------- תוספות asks: תימה ויהא בכותל דילמא הכי פירושו‎ – It is astounding! Granted that they divide it with a wall, however that does not prove that שמיה היזק היזק ראיה, for perhaps this is the interpretation of this משנה אין חולקין את החצר אפילו האחד רוצה לבנות את הכותל בתוך שלו‎ – A חצר cannot be divided (if it is אין בו כדי חלוקה) even if one of the partners wants to build the wall on his share of the property; nevertheless he cannot coerce his partner to divide (since it is a חצר שאין בו דין חלוקה) – עד שיהא בה ד' אמות לכל אחד‎ – Unless there will be four אמות for each of the partners. This is what the משנה states, according to this interpretation. From this we will infer – הא אם יש בה ד' אמות לכל אחד חולקין אם רצה לכנוס ולבנות בתוך שלו – However if there is four אמות for each of them, then they divide, provided if the initiator is willing to go into his own property and build the wall there. Otherwise he cannot coerce his partner to divide with a wall (even if it is a חצר שיש בה דין חלוקה). תוספות answers: ויש לומר דחולקין משמע באמצע – And one can say; that the word חולקין to divide, implies that the division is exactly in the middle. תוספות explains now why the word חולקין implies in the middle and not as תוספות proposed previously. דאי אשמועינן כדפירישית הוה ליה למיתני אין עושין כותל בחצר עד שיהא כולי: For if the משנה is coming to teach us as I previously explained; namely that we are discussing whether one of the partners has the right to erect a wall (on his property), then the משנה should have stated, ‘A wall cannot be erected in a חצר unless there is etc., ד' אמות for each partner’. SUMMARY If it is assumed that חולקין means dividing a property by erecting a wall; then the משנה of 'אין חולקין וכו is teaching us that we divide a property שיש בה דין חלוקה by having each of the partners contribute (space) to the wall jointly. This proves that ה"ר ש"ה. Otherwise, if the משנה would only be discussing the right of the initiator to compel his partner to allow him to build a wall on his own property, then the משנה should have stated 'אין עושין כותל בחצר עד שיהא וכו but not אין חולקין וכו'. THINKING IT OVER According to the אמינא הוה of תוספות, what would be the rules concerning dividing a חצר without a wall; both by a חצר שאין בו דין חלוקה and by a חצר שיש בה דין חלוקה‎? Could we learn פשט in the משנה of אין חולקין the way תוספות originally proposed, regardless whether we maintain ה"ר ש"ה or not?
שאני התם דאמר ליה בעל החצר לבעל הגג כולי‎—It is different there; for the owner of the חצר says to the owner of the roof, etc. OVERVIEW The גמרא attempted (seven times) and failed to prove that היזק ראיה שמיה היזק‎. The last time (even) resorting to a מימרא of an אמורא‎. תוספות is of the opinion that we can prove הרש"ה from a ברייתא‎. ------------------------ תוספות asks: תימה אמאי לא מייתי מדתניא לקמן (דף ו:) שתי חצירות זו למעלה זו – It is astounding! Why does not the גמרא bring proof that ה"ר ש"ה from a ברייתא which we learnt later that states, ‘if there are two חצירות, where one חצר is higher than the other – לא יאמר העליון הריני בונה מכנגדי ועולה אלא מסייע מלמטה ובונה‎ – The owner of the higher חצר should not say, ‘I will participate in our joint wall by building from my ground level and upwards.’ He cannot do that – rather he is required to assist from the lower level and build the entire wall together – אלמא שמיה היזק: It is evident from this ברייתא that ה"ר is שמיה היזק‎. If ה"ר לאו ש"ה then neither the עליון nor the תחתון have to participate at all. SUMMARY It would seem that we can prove הרש"ה, from the ברייתא, which states that in a case of ב' חצירות זו למעלה מזו, the עליון must jointly build the wall from the bottom up. If ה"ר לא ש"ה, there should be no requirement at all. THINKING IT OVER Seemingly we can refute תוספות proposed proof from the ברייתא‎. Perhaps the ברייתא is discussing a case where both partners contractually agreed in principle to build a joint wall. They did not however specify the details.
