מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁד אִשְׁתּוֹ.

He does so due to a suspicion that the owner of the cistern might enter the house at a time when the owner of the house is not present, and thereby be secluded together in the house with the homeowner’s wife.

מתני׳ מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גִּינָּה לִפְנִים מִגִּינָּתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ – נִכְנָס בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם נִכְנָסִים, וְיוֹצֵא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם יוֹצְאִין, וְאֵינוֹ מַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ תַּגָּרִין, וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס מִתּוֹכָהּ לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֶה אַחֶרֶת, וְהַחִיצוֹן זוֹרֵעַ אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ.

One who has ownership of a garden located beyond the garden of another, and also has access rights to it, may enter his garden only at a time when it is usual for people to enter, and may leave only at a time when it is usual for people to leave. Furthermore, he may not bring merchants into his garden, and he may not enter the garden solely in order to use it as a passageway, to enter from it into another field. And the owner of the outer garden may sow the path leading to the inner garden.

נָתְנוּ לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ מִן הַצַּד מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶן – נִכְנָס בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה וְיוֹצֵא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁרוֹצֶה, וּמַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ תַּגָּרִין, וְלֹא יִכָּנֵס מִתּוֹכָהּ לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֶה אַחֶרֶת. זֶה וְזֶה אֵינָן רַשָּׁאִים לְזוֹרְעָהּ.

If the court gave him an access path from the side of the outer garden, with the agreement of both of them, he may enter at any time he wants, and leave at any time he wants, and may bring merchants into the inner garden. But he may still not enter the garden solely in order to enter from it into another field. In such a case, neither this one, the owner of the inner garden, nor that one, the owner of the outer garden, is permitted to plant that side path.

גמ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״אַמָּה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ״ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת לְתוֹכָהּ, וְאַמָּה מִכָּאן וְאַמָּה מִכָּאן לַאֲגַפֶּיהָ; ״אַמָּה בֵּית הַקִּילוֹן אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ״ – נוֹתֵן לוֹ אַמָּה אַחַת לְתוֹכָהּ, וַחֲצִי אַמָּה מִכָּאן וַחֲצִי אַמָּה מִכָּאן לַאֲגַפֶּיהָ.

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If a field owner says to another: I am selling you from my land a water channel fit for bringing water to an irrigated field, he is required to give him land two cubits wide for the inside of the channel, and one cubit on this side and one cubit on that side for its banks. If he said to him: I am selling you a shadoof [ kilon ] channel, he is required to give him land one cubit wide for the inside of the channel and half a cubit on this side and half a cubit on that side for its banks.

וְאוֹתָן אֲגַפַּיִים מִי זוֹרְעָם? רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה זוֹרְעָם; רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה נוֹטְעָם. מַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹרְעָם – כָּל שֶׁכֵּן נוֹטְעָם; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר נוֹטְעָם, אֲבָל זוֹרְעָם – לָא, חַלְחוּלֵי מְחַלְחוּלֵי.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to those banks, who has permission to sow them? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The field owner may sow them with vegetables or crops. Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: The field owner may plant them with trees. The Gemara elaborates: The one who says that the field owner may sow them holds that all the more so he may plant them with trees. And the one who says that he may plant them with trees holds that he may only plant trees, but sowing them with other plants is not permitted. perforate the ground, which weakens it and can cause damage to the water channel.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁכָּלוּ אֲגַפֶּיהָ – מְתַקְּנָהּ מֵאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה, בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ אֲגַפֶּיהָ אֶלָּא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה.

§ And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to a water channel whose banks collapsed, the owner of the channel may repair it with earth from that field through which the channel runs, even though the field does not belong to him. It is permitted because it is known that when its banks collapsed the earth that the banks were made from spread only into that surrounding field.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב פַּפָּא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַיָּיךְ אַשְׁפְּלוּהָ לְאַרְעֵיךְ! אֶלָּא אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִבֵּל עָלָיו בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה.

Rav Pappa objects to this: But let the field owner say to the owner of the channel: Your water in your channel carried away your earth from your banks, so you have no right to take earth from my field. Rather, Rav Pappa said he may repair the banks with earth from the field because when the field owner sold the rights to the channel he accepted that condition upon himself.

מתני׳ מִי שֶׁהָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים עוֹבֶרֶת לְתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ, נְטָלָהּ וְנָתַן לָהֶם מִן הַצַּד – מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן נָתַן, וְשֶׁלּוֹ לֹא הִגִּיעוֹ.

In the case of one who had a public thoroughfare passing through his field, and he appropriated it and instead gave the public an alternative thoroughfare on the side of his property, the halakha is that the thoroughfare that he gave them, he gave them, and they may use it. But the original thoroughfare that he took for himself has not reached him, i.e., he cannot appropriate it for his personal use.

דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד – אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים – שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ – אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר, דֶּרֶךְ הַקֶּבֶר – אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר. הַמַּעֲמָד – דַּיָּינֵי צִפּוֹרִי אָמְרוּ: בֵּית אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין.

The standard width of a private path is four cubits. If a field owner sells the right to pass through his field to an individual, without specifying the width of the path, he must provide him with a path four cubits wide. The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The width of a king’s thoroughfare has no maximum measure, as the king may appropriate whatever width thoroughfare he wishes. The width of the path for the burial procession to a grave has no maximum measure. With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed.

גמ׳ אַמַּאי שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא הִגִּיעוֹ? לִינְקוֹט פַּזְרָא וְלֵיתֵיב! שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינָּהּ: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם פְּסֵידָא?

The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna rule that the public thoroughfare that the landowner took for himself has not reached him? If by making the exchange the original thoroughfare now belongs to him, let him take a stick [ pazra ] and sit on the thoroughfare and physically prevent anyone from passing through. Apparently, the Sages did not permit him to do so. The Gemara suggests: Does it follow that one can conclude from the mishna’s ruling that a person may not execute judgment for himself even in circumstances where refraining from acting will cause him a loss? This would contradict the accepted halakha that one may do so.

אֲמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לָהֶן דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן. רַב מְשָׁרְשִׁיָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אֲמַר: בְּנוֹתֵן לָהֶם דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן.

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Although generally one may do so, in this case the Sages issued a decree prohibiting it, lest he give them a circuitous route that will lengthen the distance the public will have to travel. Rav Mesharshiyya said in the name of Rava that the ruling of the mishna applies only where he actually gives them a circuitous route instead of the original straight thoroughfare. But one may exchange a public thoroughfare for an equally straight thoroughfare, appropriating the original for his personal use.