More Discussions for this daf
1. Keruvim of Shlomo 2. Planting the Amah
DAF DISCUSSIONS - BAVA BASRA 99

DANIEL GRAY asks:

Instead of explaining the gemorah's question as WHO (seller or buyer with the emphasis on the word "Ume") has rights to plant along the bank of the irrigation ditch (which question is not disputed in the answer) is it justifiable to instead explain that the gemorah took it as a given that the seller is the only party who can plant in that space (as proven from the Mishnah that seller doesn't relinquish planting rights when allowing the buyer a usage other than planting) and the question is how far can the seller go in his planting in terms of making a disturbance to the soil, with the emphasis of the question on the word "Zoram", with the preceding word "ume" meaning (b'tmeyah) - can he take it so far as to "zoram" - to plant even seeds that cause more extreme disturbance to the soil? The gemorah's answer of two opinions according to Shmuel - yes, he can plant even seed, or, he can only plant trees since they disturb the soil less, appear then to more smugly match and address the question when it's explained this way.

DANIEL GRAY, TORONTO

The Kollel replies:

If the word "Mi" (incidentally, not "u'Mi") is bi'Temiyah, then it would not fit well that Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel answered that the owner of the field can plant seeds. If a question is bi'Temiyah, that means that it is a rhetorical question, so it is clear that seeds may not be planted. If that is the case, it would be strange for Rav Yehudah to answer that the owner of the field may plant seeds, since it was obvious in the question that he cannot plant seeds. This would be a turn-around of 180 degrees between the question and the answer, which is improbable.

Wishing you a "Kayitz Bari"!

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Shmuel Berkovicz comments:

But it's still interesting that the gemara asks who can plant and then brings a machlokes about what is allowed to be planted.