ומה אתה אומר הכי קאמרי ליה מדבריך לדברינו אין באין משל צבור וכן כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן חוששין לבעלי זרועות איכא בינייהו

And what is the meaning of the phrase: Do you say so? This is what they were say ing to him: If we apply the opinion from your statement that one may volunteer as an unpaid bailee, to our statement that the Sages instituted a directive to give him four dinars, the result is that communal offerings do not come from communal funds as required. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The question of whether or not we are concerned about violent people is the difference between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei, i. e., that is the crux of their dispute.

מתני׳ המוציא זבל לרשות הרבים המוציא מוציא והמזבל מזבל אין שורין טיט ברשות הרבים ואין לובנים לבנים אבל גובלין טיט ברשות הרבים אבל לא לבנים

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes manure out to the public domain, in order for it to be transported to fertilize a field, he who takes it out from his property takes it out, and immediately, he who takes it to fertilize the field takes it to fertilize the field. They must relocate the manure immediately without allowing it to sit around in the public domain. Similarly, one may not soak clay in the public domain before it is kneaded, and one may not mold bricks in the public domain since this takes a long time and inhibits use of the public domain by others. But one may knead clay in the public domain, as this process does not take long, but not bricks.

הבונה ברשות הרבים המביא אבנים מביא והבונה בונה ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף מתקן הוא את מלאכתו לפני שלשים יום

With regard to one who builds a structure, keeping the building materials in the public domain, he who brings the stones brings them, and immediately, he who builds the structure builds with them, and may not leave them there. And if the stones cause damage before he had a chance to build them into the structure, he must pay for what he damaged. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may even prepare his work thirty days beforehand; he may keep the building materials in the public domain for that duration.

גמ׳ לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר בשעת הוצאת זבלים אדם מוציא זבלו לרשות הרבים וצוברו כל שלשים יום כדי שיהא נישוף ברגלי אדם וברגלי בהמה שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע לישראל את הארץ

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is taught in a baraita ( Tosefta 11: 8): Rabbi Yehuda says: When it is the time for the manure to be taken out, a person may take his manure out into the public domain and may pile it up for all thirty days, so that it will be trodden on by the feet of people and by the feet of animals, to prepare it for use as fertilizer, since it was on this condition that Joshua bequeathed Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people. In other words, it is universally accepted that some will relinquish certain rights for the sake of others, and although it may be a nuisance for certain people, this practice is allowed.

אפילו תימא רבי יהודה מודה רבי יהודה שאם הזיק חייב לשלם והתנן מודה רבי יהודה בנר חנוכה שהוא פטור מפני שהוא עושה ברשות מאי לאו רשות דבית דין לא רשות דמצוה

The Gemara responds: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda concedes that although he acted within his rights, if the manure caused damage, the one who placed it there is liable to pay. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Bava Kamma 62b): Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to a Hanukkah lamp placed in the public domain that ignited a fire and caused damage that he is exempt, because he acts with permission? What, is the reason he is exempt not that he acted with the permission of the court to use the public domain in this manner, which indicates that one who acts with court permission is exempt from liability for damage? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it means that he has the permission of a mitzva. Since it is a mitzva to place the Hanukkah lamp outside, he is exempt from paying for the damage it caused. The mere right to place the item in the public domain does not exempt the owner from liability.

והתניא כל אלו שאמרו מותרין לקלקל ברשות הרבים אם הזיק חייב לשלם ורבי יהודה פוטר אלא מחוורתא מתניתין דלא כרבי יהודה

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita:

With regard to all these cases in which the Sages said that it is permitted for people to place obstacles in the public domain, if they caused damage, these people are liable to pay, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts them? Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one has the permission of the court to put an item in the public domain, he is exempt from paying damages. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר אביי רבי יהודה ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבי שמעון כולהו סבירא להו כל מקום שנתנו לו חכמים רשות והזיק פטור רבי יהודה הא דאמרן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף מתקן הוא את מלאכתו לפני שלשים יום

Abaye said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon all hold that wherever the Sages gave someone permission to perform an action, and in performing this action he causes damage, he is exempt from payment. The Gemara cites the sources for this assertion: It is clear that Rabbi Yehuda is of that opinion based on that which we just said. It is clear that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is of that opinion, as we learned in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may even prepare his work thirty days beforehand.

רבי שמעון דתנן היה מעמידו בעלייה צריך שיהא תחתיו מעזיבה שלשה טפחים ובכירה טפח ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק רבי שמעון אומר לא אמרו כל השעורים הללו אלא שאם הזיק פטור מלשלם

It is clear that Rabbi Shimon is of that opinion, as we learned in a mishna ( Bava Batra 20b): If one was setting up an oven in the upper story, there must be a plaster floor beneath it, which serves as the ceiling of the lower story, at least three handbreadths thick, so that the ceiling below does not burn. And in the case of a stove the plaster floor must be at least one handbreadth thick. And if he causes damage after having taken the necessary precautions, he pays compensation for that which he damaged. Rabbi Shimon says: The Sages said all of these measurements to teach only that if he causes damage he is exempt from paying, as he took all reasonable precautions.

תנו רבנן החצב שמסר לסתת הסתת חייב הסתת שמסר לחמר החמר חייב החמר שמסר לכתף הכתף חייב הכתף שמסר לבנאי הבנאי חייב הבנאי שמסר לאדריכל אדריכל חייב ואם הניח אבן על הדימוס והזיקה כולן חייבין לשלם

§ The Sages taught: Once the stonecutter has delivered the stones to the chiseler, from that point on, the chiseler is liable for any damage caused by them. Once the chiseler has delivered the stones to the donkey driver to transport them, the donkey driver is liable. Once the donkey driver has delivered the stones to a porter to carry them to the building site, the porter is liable. Once the porter has delivered the stones to the builder, the builder is liable. Once the builder has delivered them to the master builder [adrikhal], who places and straightens the stones on the structure, the master builder is liable. And if he placed a stone upon the row [dimos] of stones and the stone fell off and caused damage, then they are all liable to pay.

והתניא אחרון חייב וכולן פטורים לא קשיא כאן בשכירות כאן בקבלנות

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita, that only the last one, the master builder, is liable, and all of them are exempt? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the ruling here, in this baraita, is stated with regard to a case of hiring, and therefore only the last one is liable, whereas the ruling there, in that baraita, is stated with regard to a case of contracting, in which they all agreed to perform the work together, and therefore they are all liable to pay.

מתני׳ שתי גנות זו על גב זו והירק בינתים רבי מאיר אומר של עליון רבי יהודה אומר של תחתון אמר רבי מאיר אם ירצה העליון ליקח את עפרו אין כאן ירק אמר רבי יהודה אם ירצה התחתון למלאות את גנתו אין כאן ירק

MISHNA: In the case of two gardens that were located one above the other, i. e., a garden on a plateau that borders another garden below, and vegetables grew in-between, out of the wall of soil resulting from the difference in height between the two gardens, Rabbi Meir says: These vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden. Rabbi Yehuda says: They belong to the owner of the lower one. Rabbi Meir said in explanation of his ruling: If the owner of the upper garden would want to dig and take his dirt and does so, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him. In response, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the owner of the lower garden would want to fill his garden with dirt and does so, thereby raising its level, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him.

אמר רבי מאיר מאחר ששניהן יכולין למחות זה על זה רואין מהיכן ירק זה חי אמר רבי שמעון כל שהעליון יכול לפשוט את ידו וליטול הרי הוא שלו והשאר של תחתון

Rabbi Meir said: Since the two of them can object to each other, as they each have the ability to prevent the vegetable growth, nothing can be decided based on such considerations. Instead, the court considers from where this vegetable lives and derives nourishment, whether from above or from below. Rabbi Shimon said: Any vegetables that the owner of the upper garden can stretch out his hand and take, those vegetables are his, and the rest belong to the owner of the lower garden.

גמ׳ אמר רבא בעיקרו כולי עלמא לא פליגי דעליון הוי כי פליגי בנופו רבי מאיר סבר שדי נופו בתר עיקרו ורבי יהודה סבר לא אמרינן שדי נופו בתר עיקרו

GEMARA: Rava says: With regard to the root of the vegetable growing out of the wall of soil, everyone agrees that it is the property of the owner of the upper garden, since the ground belongs to him. When they disagree, it is with regard to its leaves, which grow above the airspace of the lower garden. Rabbi Meir holds: Cast its leaves after its root, and consider that they too belong to the owner of the upper garden. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not say: Cast its leaves after its root.

ואזדא לטעמייהו דתניא היוצא מן הגזע ומן השרשין הרי אלו של בעל הקרקע דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר מן הגזע של בעל האילן ומן השרשין של בעל הקרקע

The Gemara comments: And they follow their line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to a tree belonging to one individual that grew on land owned by another: That which sprouts from the trunk and from the roots, these belong to the owner of the land. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: That which sprouts from the trunk belongs to the owner of the tree, and anything that grows from the roots belongs to the owner of the land. This statement demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, ownership of the sprouts is not determined exclusively based on the ownership of the roots.