Shechenim - Chapter 10

With regard to crops, see Hilchot Shemitah V’Yovel 13:4.

These are trees with many branches. Bava Batra 2:7 mentions an opinion that states that any non-fruit-bearing tree must be planted more than 50 cubits away from the city. The standard texts of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (loc. cit.) state that the Rambam accepts that opinion. Hence, many commentaries have pointed to this ruling as a change in his position. Rav Kapach, however, has manuscript copies of that text that state that the Rambam rejects that view.

For a city looks much more attractive when it is surrounded by open space.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 155) write that this law applies only in Eretz Yisrael, and only during the time that it is inhabited by Jews. It does not apply in the diaspora, even when a city is inhabited primarily by Jews. It appears that this opinion is also accepted by Rav Yosef Karo, for he did not include this law in his Shulchan Aruch.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam states that the tree may be cut down before the owner is reimbursed.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (based on Bava Batra 24b), the Rambam explains the rationale for this ruling: The tree must be cut down regardless; the question is only with regard to reimbursement. For the owner of the tree to be able to expropriate money from the inhabitants of me city, he must prove his position without question.

I.e., a threshing floor where one must use a winnowing fork; it is impossible to winnow the produce by hand (Maggid Mishneh). If the threshing floor is not significantly large, no separation need be made (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 155:47).

In Chapter 11, Halachah 2, the Rambam speaks of “the chaff.”

For the straw will be like an extra amount of fertilizer for the field and upset its chemistry (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah; Bava Batra 2:8; Sefer Me’irat Einayim 155:52).

See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 365:2), which also mentions the difficulty caused to priests.

Beside the fact that carcasses of animals are found at leather works before the hide is skinned, feces are used in the leather-making process, causing this place to produce an extremely foul odor.

Because of the foul smell that these cause.

Not only is the odor of leather-works very foul, it is damaging to a person’s health. Therefore, this additional restriction is placed upon it. (See Rav Kapach’s notes on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Batra 2:9.)

I.e., even if the leather-works is placed more than 50 cubits outside the city, it must be placed to the east.

This refers to Eretz Yisrael and the lands surrounding it where the desert is to the east. [See Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:9)].

For the flax spoils the water, which in turn will damage the vegetables (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Batra 2:10).

For the honey takes on some of the flavor of the mustard, making it sharp and pungent (Ibid.).

He must, however, make some separation, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

The Tur differs and maintains that a person must make a separation only with regard to soaking flax – for there is no difference between that situation and an ordinary cistern – but not with regard to leeks or mustard. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 155:31) – and apparently the Ramah – however, accept the Rambam’s view.

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 155:4) states that if, however, the problem stems from rain water, the owner of the lower storey is responsible.

See Chapter 4, Halachah 1, which states that the owner of the second storey is responsible for the plaster.

For the damage did not come as a direct result of the activity of the owner of the second storey.

By building an absorbent base for his ceiling.

The Ramah (loc. cit.) differs and maintains that every situation has to be considered within its individual context. If the leak is small and ceases quickly, the owner of the upper storey is not required to correct it. If, however, it is significant, even though he has plaster there, the owner of the upper storey is liable.

I.e., the damage is the direct result of his activity.

There are commentaries that note that the Rambam’s wording appears to imply that this ruling applies bedi’avad, if he “has a tree growing.” At the outset, however, this should not be done. (This is the view of Rashi and Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi.) Nevertheless, from the following halachah, it is clear that it is necessary to separate by only four or two cubits. See also the Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 155:32), who state that one is permitted to plant a tree next to a colleague’s field even if the colleague has a cistern near his property line.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 155:73 differentiates between planting a tree and placing down olive wastes, as mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 2. Although the damage from the olive wastes will not show immediately, the damage began to take effect from the time the person placed the olive waste there. In this instance, when he planted his tree there was no damage to his colleague’s property at all. Although the roots of his tree will grow, that is no longer a direct result of his activity.

Our Sages (Bava Batra 26b) determined that within a sixteen-cubit radius, roots derive their nurture from the main stem of a tree. Beyond that point, they derive their nurture independently.

Because he is the master of his own property.

Because they derive nurture from his field.

He should not dig deeper than that, because the presence of the roots of Shimon’s tree at that depth will not cause Reuven any loss, and they will benefit Shimon.

This rationale applies with regard to all the laws mentioned in this halachah.

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 155:25) cites opinions that maintain that the rules to follow apply only when one plants vines and trees that have already grown, but not when one plants a seed that will grow into a vine or a tree.

The Maggid Mishneh cites authorities who state that if both of the neighbors come to plant at the same time, each one should distance his vines two cubits from the property line.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:12), the Rambam explains that the soil in Eretz Yisrael is rich, and the roots of the vine extend far into the ground. Hence, if one does not leave such a separation, one will be restricting the nurture of one’s colleague’s vine. Other authorities explain that the plows used in the vineyards of Eretz Yisrael were four cubits wide. If such a distance was not left between the vines, it would impede the plowing of his neighbor’s vineyard. (This difference in interpretation may be the source for the objections the Ra’avad registers against the Rambam’s rulings.)

The soil in the diaspora was not as rich, and the roots of the vine would not extend that far. According to the other authorities, smaller plows were used there.

The Ramah (loc. cit.) cites opinions that maintain that one must separate far enough between trees and vines to prevent birds reaching the vines from the trees in one fell swoop.

The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this is a printing error, and with regard to two sets of trees, it is sufficient to separate two cubits in the diaspora. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.).

The portion of a plow with two metal spikes that spurs and directs a team of oxen when they plow (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Bava Batra 2:13).

For branches this low will prevent him from plowing and restrict his use of his own field. If the branches are higher than that, he should leave them, for their presence does not cause him any loss.

There is an extra measure of severity with regard to these types of trees, because they have very many branches, and the increased shade they will bring will harm the crops growing in the adjoining field.

Which requires irrigation.

Which also requires an added measure of water.

For the neighbor’s trees will prevent the dew - a desired source of water – from reaching the earth.