(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 27

BAVA BASRA 27 & 28 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.


(a) We then suggest that the source for Ula's referring to Reuven's tree (which grows within sixteen Amos of Shimon's field) as 'a thieving tree' and exempting it from Bikurim, is perhaps another Mishnah in Shevi'is.
What does the Mishnah say there about three fully-grown trees belonging to three people which is planted in the form of a triangle in an area of a Beis-Sa'ah?

(b) What area of land does each tree then require to feed?

(c) Considering that the difference between this Shiur and that of Ula is close, what makes us initially refute the suggestion that this Mishnah is Ula's source, only Ula gave an approximate Shiur (sixteen Amos per tree [in one direction, half the square root of 1024], instead of half the square root of 833 1/3, which would be just under fifteen Amos)?

(a) What misunderstanding have we been guilty of in Ula's Shiur of sixteen Amos that created the current discrepancy with the Mishnah?

(b) Based on the principle that a circle is a third less than a square, what is now the area required by a tree in which to feed from the ground?

(c) We finally reconcile Ula with this Mishnah, despite the small discrepancy.
How much discrepancy is there between Ula and the Mishnah, and how do we justify it?

(a) How will Ula explain the Mishnah in Bikurim 'ha'Koneh Ilan *ve'Karka'o*, Meivi ve'Korei'?

(b) The Mishnah later in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' rules 'ha'Koneh Sh'tei Ilanos be'Soch shel Chavero, Meivi ve'Eino Korei'.
Why is that?

(c) What do we extrapolate from there with regard to someone who purchases three trees?

(d) And how will Ula explain that Mishnah?

(a) And what does Rebbi Akiva in the Mishnah in Pe'ah say is Chayav Pe'ah and Bikurim, and can be used as a P'ruzbul?

(b) What is a P'ruzbul? Who has to own the land?

(a) Which is the fourth case that the Tana in the previous Mishnah includes in the Din of 'Kol she'Hu'?

(b) How do we interpret 'Karka Kol she'Hu', to reconcile Ula with this Beraisa?

(c) How do we prove this answer from the Lashon of the Mishnah itself?

Answers to questions



(a) If a tree is growing half in Eretz Yisrael and half in Chutz la'Aretz, Rebbi, in a Beraisa, rules that Tevel and Chulin are mixed together.
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) Why does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on Ula?

(d) How do we establish the Beraisa, to reconcile it with Ula?

(a) If, as we just explained, the Beraisa speaks when there is a rock that divides between the roots on either side of the tree, then why does Rebbi say 'Tevel ve'Chulin Me'uravin Zeh ba'Zeh'?

(b) What is then the S'vara of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

(c) And how does Abaye reconcile Ula with the Mishnah that we learned earlier 'Marchikin es ha'Ilan min ha'Bor Esrim-ve'Chamesh Amah'?

(a) Rav Dimi quoted Resh Lakish as having asked Rebbi Yochanan what the Din will be if Reuven's tree is growing within sixteen Amos of Shimon's field, with regard to Bikurim.
What did Rebbi Yochanan reply?

(b) How did Ravin quote Rebbi Yochanan?

(c) What is the reason for that? Does he disagree with Ula's principle that a tree nurtures up to a distance of sixteen Amos?

(d) And what did Rebbi Yochanan say about the branches of Reuven's tree that project over Shimon's field, according to Ravin?

(a) What authority does our Mishnah grant to Shimon with regard to branches from Reuven's tree that project over his field?

(b) And what does the Tana say in the case of ...

  1. ... the branches of Reuven's carob or sycamore tree whose branches project over Shimon's field? Why is that?
  2. ... the branches of Reuven's tree whose branches project over Shimon's Beis-ha'Shalachin (a field that needs to be constantly watered)? Why is that?
(c) What is a Mishkoles?

(d) And what does Aba Shaul say about any non fruit-bearing tree?

(a) We ask whether Aba Shaul refers to the Reisha or the Seifa. According to the first side of the She'eilah, Aba Shaul permits Shimon to do with any non fruit-bearing tree, what the Tana Kama permits him to do to a carob or sycamore tree.
What does he hold according to the second side of the She'eilah?

(b) What is the major difference between the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c) And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What does Aba Shaul say in the Beraisa?

(d) How does Rav Ashi prove this from the words of the Mishnah ('Kol Ilan S'rak ke'Neged ha'Mishkoles')?

(a) The Tana Kama orders Reuven to cut the branches of his tree that project over the street, up to the height of a camel and its rider.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b) Rebbi Shimon's opinion is the most stringent of all.
What does he say?

(c) What do we mean when we establish that our Mishnah holds that when it comes to Nizakin, we assess things as they are now? What is the alternative?

(a) Resh Lakish connects our Mishnah with the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Chezkas ha'Batim.
Under what condition does he permit digging a hole underneath the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(b) What does the Tana Kama say?

(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan establishes our Mishnah even like the Chachamim.
Why might the Chachamim concede that, in our Mishnah, we make only a short-term assessment (without taking into account the long-term damages)?

(a) The Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah argue over whether Reuven must cut off the branches of his tree that project over the street, up to the height of a camel and its rider or up to the height of a camel laden with flax or with bundles of branches.
How do we prove that the Shiur of the Rabbanan must be higher than that of Rebbi Yehudah?

(b) Why do we not ask in the same way what a rider will now do according to Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah permits cutting down all the branches because of Tum'ah, which the Beraisa interprets to mean because of Ohel ha'Tum'ah.
What does he mean by that?

(d) What else might our Mishnah have meant?

(e) What is the Halachic difference between the two explanations? In which case will the one apply but not the other?

***** Hadran Alach 'Lo Yachpor' *****

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,