Bava Batra 33: חֲצִיף אִינִישׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 33

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Sometimes, the certainty of a claim is enough to make the court believe someone.

The Gemara on our daf quotes Rav Yehuda as teaching that if a man goes by carrying his magala and tovelaya, saying “I will go and cull the dates from the date palm that I purchased from so-and-so” we will believe him. The Gemara explains that this is based on the assumption that no one would have the gall to publicly harvest a date palm that was not his.

We explore the ethics of squatting, and policies regarding homeless squatters.

Bava Batra 32: שְׁטָרָא זַיְיפָא הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 32

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf presents two similar cases but offers two different rulings in them.

In the first case, one person said to another “what do you want with my field?” The second one answered, “I purchased it from you, and here is the bill of sale.” The first replied “that bill of sale is a forgery!”

The second leaned over to Rabba who was presiding over the court and said, “It really is a forgery, but the real contract was lost, so I thought that I would produce this one in order to bolster my claim.”

We continue our exploration of the rules of ownership vs possession and chazakah.

Bava Batra 31: מָה לִי לְשַׁקֵּר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf continues discussing how we deal with competing claims to property.

If two people both claim shel avotai – that a piece of land belonged to their ancestors – and in an attempt to buttress their claims, one brought witnesses that it had belonged to his ancestors, while the other brought witnesses that he had lived there for three years, and therefore had a ḥazaka (presumption of ownership), Rabba rules that we believe the one who has lived there for three years because of the principle mah lo le-shaker – what interest does he have in lying? Specifically, if he wanted to lie he could have done so in a more convincing manner, by saying that he had purchased it and had lived there for three years – a claim that would have been accepted by the courts. Abaye disagrees, arguing that witnesses are always more powerful that a claim based on mah lo le-shaker.

We explore the law regarding adverse possession and it contrast with chazakah.

Bava Batra 30: זִיל בְּרוֹר אֲכִילְתָךְ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we discussed, a claim that one has purchased a field coupled with evidence that one has occupied the field for three years is enough to grant one presumptive ownership of the field – despite the fact that there is no other evidence that the field was purchased.

The rabbis offer a number of cases which demonstrate the variation possible within the halacha of chazaka.

Next we are told about a field that has been bought from someone who claimed to have bought it from someone else with no proof. In such a case the original owner can take back the field even after three years of chazaka.

We explore the use of Talmud order Nezikin in preparing students (even for secular law careers).

Bava Batra 29: קַמַּיְיתָא לָא קָפֵיד אִינִישׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Why have the rabbis understood that chazaka, presumptive ownership, is established after three years? The Gemara uses a number of examples to illustrate the rabbis' reasoning. It explains that after one year, an owner might let it go when another person profits from use of his land. After two years he might do the same. But after three years had passed, an owner would stand up and claim his land.

Rav Yosef said that it is written in the verse detailing the purchase of a field from Hanamel by Jeremiah, his cousin, during the time of the siege of Eretz Yisrael:

“Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them” (Jeremiah 32:44).

This describes the writing of a bill of sale to serve as proof of ownership of the field, since he was unable to remain living there for three years to establish the presumption of ownership. As the prophet Jeremiah stood in the tenth year of King Zedekiah’s reign and warned people to write bills of sale for the eleventh year, when Eretz Yisrael would be overrun.

Consequently, despite the fact that one purchasing a field there would be able to live on the land for two years, this would not be sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, which is why he said that they should have bills of sale written.

We explore the rhetoric and historicity of the book of Jeremiah.

Bava Batra 28: וְהַבּוֹרוֹת חֶזְקַת הַבָּתִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to Jewish law, just because someone has possession of property and lives or works it, he cannot claim ownership of it. A person only becomes an owner if he receives that status from the original owner through a sale or by receiving a present, or if he claims an object that is hefker, performing a formal act of possession (a kinyan). Thus, there can be no claim of ownership based on “squatters’ rights” and if someone else comes with proof of ownership, the person living or working the land will have to prove that he bought it.

We explore the groundbreaking work of Prof Dovid West Halivni and his theory of talmud composition using this first Mishnah as an example.

Bava Batra 27: כּל הָאִילָן כְּנֶגֶד הַמִּשְׁקוֹלֶת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

With regard to a tree that extends into the public domain, one cuts its branches so that a camel can pass beneath the tree with its rider sitting on it. Rabbi Yehuda says: One cuts enough branches that a camel loaded with flax or bundles of branches can pass beneath it. Rabbi Shimon says: One cuts all branches of the tree that extend into the public domain along the plumb line, so that they do not hang over the public area at all.

While the Talmud doesn't specify the kind of tree that must be distanced from others, in Mesopotamia the most likely candidate was the Date Palm, Phoenix dactylifera.

We cite Psalm 92:13 צַ֭דִּיק כַּתָּמָ֣ר יִפְרָ֑ח כְּאֶ֖רֶז בַּלְּבָנ֣וֹן יִשְׂגֶּֽה׃

And explore the phenomenon of the “zaddik" in our times.

Bava Batra 26: כִּ֤י הָֽאָדָם֙ עֵ֣ץ הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

How much does one need to distance his tree from another’s property? One reason for the distance is to leave room for the neighbor to plow. If one’s roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain distance depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for).

Rava bar Rav Chanan refused to cut down his fig trees because Rav Chanina’s son died because he cut down a fig tree. There is a prohibition from the Torah to cut down fruit bearing trees. It is not clear, however, that the prohibition should apply in this case.

We explore the prohibition Deut 20 in the context of war and seagoing a city, which brings to just war theory and the ethics of collateral civilian casualties.

Bava Batra 25: עוֹלָם לְאַכְסַדְרָה הוּא דּוֹמֶה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara records a conversation regarding the movement of the sun across the sky. The rabbis suggest various theories to explain why the sun is in the sky for less time during the winter months and more time in the summer months.

Rabbi Eliezer says that the world resembles a porch, a structure which lacks a fourth wall (Rashi, s.v. Le’achsadrah), and the north side is not enclosed.

The fact that the earth is a globe was known in the Talmudic era and anyone learning the book of Yeshayahu would surely notice the verse “He who sits on the circle of the earth” (40:22).

How are we, then, to interpret Rabbi Eliezer’s statement that the world lacks one side?

We explore ancient cosmology and the rabbinic attempts to refute the findings of Copernicus.