Bava Batra 63: אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

But what does it mean if a person says that another should have a portion of his/her property?

Ravina bar Kisi said: Come and hear: it has been taught in a braisa: If a man says, “Give so-and-so a share in (the water of) my pit,” Sumchos says that he is to receive not less than a quarter. [The share may mean either a half or a mere fraction. Being in doubt, therefore, we strike the balance.]

[If the man says], “Give him a share [in the pit] for a barrel (for watering animals),” he is to receive not less than an eighth. [Since, at the utmost, only half the pit is required, the gift is at the utmost only half of a half, and we strike the balance between this and a fraction.]

We explore the world of cisterns in antiquity.

Bava Batra 62: בְּסֵירוּגִין, מַהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf discusses a variety of cases where the field is described by means of neighboring fields. Among them are cases where the Gemara itself is unable to reach a clear conclusion about how to rule.

What if the seller specified what the corners of the field are? Should we assume that recognizing each of the four corners indicates that the entire field is to be sold, or might it indicate that only a limited area of the field is being sold?

We explore the notion of nation borders and the myths that justify territorial integrity and conflict.

Bava Batra 61: וְהַצְּלָעוֹת֩ צֵלָ֨ע אֶל־צֵלָ֜ע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

It is clear that when two parties sign a detailed contract in which the owner agrees to sell and the buyer agrees to purchase a particular house or piece of land, they can write in any conditions or specifics that they please, and the agreement is valid. The Mishnayot of this perek deal with situations where agreements are made using less specific terms. How should the general statements be understood?

Rav Yosef taught: A small structure attached to a building has three names in the Bible: Gallery [yatzia], side chamber [tzela], and cell [ta]. Such a structure is called a gallery, as it is written: “The bottommost gallery [hayyatzia] was five cubits wide” (I Kings 6:6). It is also called a side chamber, as it is written: “And the side chambers [vehatzelaot] were one over another, thirty-three times” (Ezekiel 41:6).

We explore Ezekiel’s vision of the third Temple.

Bava Batra 60: וַיַּרְא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֹׁכֵן לִשְׁבָטָיו

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that one may not open an entrance opposite another entrance, or a window opposite another window, derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the verse states:

“And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling tribe by tribe; and the spirit of God came upon him” (Numbers 24:2).

The Gemara explains: What was it that Balaam saw that so inspired him? He saw that the entrances of their tents were not aligned with each other, ensuring that each family enjoyed a measure of privacy. And he said: If this is the case, these people are worthy of having the Divine Presence rest on them.

We explore the issues of privacy learned from this pericope and some added dimensions with the discovery of the Deir Alah inscriptions.

Bava Batra 59: לֵימָא בְּהֶיזֵּק רְאִיָּה קָמִיפַּלְגִי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A person should not open his windows towards a yard owned by partners. If he bought a house in a different yard, he should not make an opening towards a yard of partners. If he built a second floor onto his house, he should not make another opening to a yard owned by partners.

Rather, if he wants, he can build a room in his house, build his second floor, and the people who will live on the second floor can go through the entrance of his house (to the yard).

We explore the rights to privacy in halacha and secular law.

Bava Batra 58: Καππαδοκία אַפִּיתְחָא דְקַפּוֹטְקְיָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned in yesterday's daf, Torah scholars organize their desks carefully. Ignoramuses leave a food in the middle of their desks surrounded by dishes. Torah scholars sleep with their sandals or shoes under their beds. Ignoramuses sleep with a hodgepodge of items under their beds.

Having related that incident, the Gemara notes that at the entrance of Kapotekiyya it was written: Anpak, anbag, antal, which are all names for the same measurement. And what is antal? It is the quarter-log of the Torah.

We explore this ancient city that was home to a Jewish diaspora in Talmudic times as well as the privilege of eastern over western diaspora.

Bava Batra 57: וְעֹצֵם עֵינָיו מֵרְאוֹת בְּרָע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara cites the verse in Isa. (33:15) which praises a person who "closes his eyes from viewing evil." Rebbi Chiya bar Aba explains that this refers to a person who does not gaze at women while they are standing at the wash pool washing clothes (when they have to expose parts of their legs to enter the pool).

The Gemara asks what situation Rebbi Chiya bar Aba is discussing. If he is discussing a situation in which there is another route to take, then even if the person closes his eyes, he is considered a Rasha for taking this route in the first place! If there is no other route to take, then why does he need to close his eyes? He is an "Ones," and the Torah exempts him!

The Gemara answers that, indeed, there is no other route to take, and nevertheless he is required to force himself not to look at the forbidden sites and to turn his head away and close his eyes.

We explore the nature of visual stimulation and addiction.

Bava Batra 56: וְהֵן עֵדוּת אַחַת לַהֲזָמָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 56

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If two witnesses testified on behalf of a person that he used a property for three years, and they were found to be false witnesses, they pay the original owner everything.

In our case, they sought to deprive the original owner of the field by falsely testifying that the occupant had established a chazakah. Accordingly, they must pay the field's value to the owner, who receives these punitive damages in addition to the field itself, which he retrieves from the occupant.

We explore the legal notion of the punishment fitting the crime in light of theodicy.

Bava Batra 55: פַּרְדָּכְתְּ – מְסַיַּיע מָתָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 55

To download, click/tap here: PDF

All tax and civil laws that prevail in a country have legal force in Jewish court, since the country's citizenry voluntarily accepts upon itself to abide by the government's laws. Thus, a Jew who takes possession of property according to the provisions of local law is not guilty of theft even if the Torah law would consider the property belonging to another Jew.

This applies, however, only to the laws sanctioned by the constitution of the country but not when monarchy appropriates property by force.

We explore Taxation in Palestine under roman hegemony and how it affected Jewish Christian relations through the eyes of Hyam Maccoby.

Bava Batra 54: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 54

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Did Shmuel actually say this? But doesn’t Shmuel say that the law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., the halakha obligates Jews to observe the laws of the locale in which they reside, and the king said that land may not be acquired without a document? Therefore, taking possession should not be effective for acquisition.

Rav Yosef said to him: I do not know how to reconcile this contradiction, but there was an incident in the village of Dura that was founded by shepherds, where there was a Jew who purchased land from a gentile by giving money, and in the interim another Jew came and plowed it a bit.

We explore the law of "Dina d'Malchusa Dina” as applied to the modern state of Israel then go on to explore the city of Dura and the amazing archeological finds.

Bava Batra 53: הַבּוֹנֶה פַּלְטֵרִין גְּדוֹלִים πραιτώριον, prætorium

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 53

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a convert has a palace and no heirs, a person can acquire that home by putting doors on the house. Similarly, one acquires the property of a convert without heirs if he applies plaster and even just one tile on his home. Does the tile have to be at the entrance of the house, where it is easily seen?

Rav Amram share wisdom from a baraita: One who spreads out mattresses on the property of a convert who died without heirs has acquired it.

We explore the notion of squatting as means of acquisition with review of recent world cities dealing with slums, as well as the infamous Wadi Salib riots and their roots.

Bava Batra 52: בַּחֲזָקָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 52

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis discuss what should happen when the inheritance claimed is indirect and not automatic. Who should have to bring proof in these cases? The Gemara suggests that the Mishna is incomplete and that it is teaching that possession that is accompanied by a disputed claim is settled if one can claim chazaka based on three years of ownership. Possession not accompanied by a claim, because there is no argument, or one has been given a gift, or brothers who have divided their property, or where one possesses the property of a confer who has died - in these cases, the propriety is acquired without having to establish chazaka.

We explore inheritance laws in Halacha and secular courts.

Bava Batra 51: יַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ סְגוּלָּה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 51

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned, in order to transfer property from one person to another, a kinyan must take place. A kinyan is an act that indicates a final decision on the part of the owner to sell and the purchaser to buy.

The Gemara on our daf discusses a kinyan that is done by means of a shtar – a contract or legal document. Rav Hamnuna quotes a baraita that teaches that a shtar is valid if it was written on paper or on clay, even if it is not worth a peruta – a small sum of money.

The baraita stated that if the bailee took a deposit from a minor, he must make a “segulah” a safe investment for him.

The Gemara asks: What is meant by a “suegulah” a safe investment? Rav Ḥisda says: The bailee should purchase a Torah scroll for the minor. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: He should purchase a date palm, from which the minor will consume dates.

We explore the term “segulah” as used on its biblical context and the notion of chosenness….as applied to Am Yisrael.

Bava Batra 50: אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 50

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara attempts to differentiate the current assertion - that a woman can void the sale of her field even if she previously consented in certain situations - from other rulings that suggest that such a sale is always valid. There are a number of statements describing the use of usufruct property, the property that belongs to a woman because she brought it into her marriage.

We explore the laws of usufruct halachic and secular.

Bava Batra 49: ״נַחַת רוּחַ עָשִׂיתִי לְבַעְלִי״!

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 49

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to Jewish law, what are some of the mutual responsibilities of husbands and wives?

This question is discussed by the Gemara in response to the Mishna’s teaching (see daf 42a) that ba’al be-nikhsei ishto – a husband working his wife’s property – will not gain a ḥazaka (presumption of ownership) on the field. Since the husband has legitimate reason to be on the field – he has rights to the produce – there is no reason for his wife to complain about his presence there, so his being there cannot support a claim that the field had been purchased by him.

The Gemara suggests: By inference, the husband has the ability to bring proof that he purchased the field from his wife or received it as a gift from her and consequently be regarded as the owner of the field.

The Gemara asks: Why is this proof decisive? Let her say: I did it, i.e., I gave or sold the field to my husband, only to please my husband, but I did not mean it.

We explore marriage in Greece and Rome and the modern concept of co-dependance and “husband pleasing”!

Bava Batra 48: אַגַּב אוּנְסֵיהּ גָּמַר וּמַקְנֵה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 48

To download, click/tap here: PDF

While discussing the validity of a sale when the original owner was coerced to sell, the Gemara suggests comparing it to a case of divorce.

According to Torah law only the husband can act to divorce his wife; the wife does not have the power to create a divorce. The Gemara in Gittin (88b) teaches that there are exceptions. If a beit din forces the husband to give a get (write of divorce), the divorce will take effect. If it is a non-Jewish court that forces him to give a get, no divorce takes place. If, however, the Jewish court rules that the husband should divorce his wife, but they do not have the power to force him to give a get, they can turn to the secular courts and arrange for them to force him to follow their ruling.

We explore the legal ramification of coercion (Hobbes) with a review of the work of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman.

Bava Batra 47: שָׁאנֵי אוּנְסָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 47

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz "Generally speaking, in order for a kinyan – a transfer of ownership – to take place, Jewish law requires gemirut da’at – knowledge and agreement on the part of both the buyer and the seller. It is, therefore, somewhat surprising to hear Rav Huna’s teaching – talyuhu ve-zabein, zevinei zevini – if someone is “hung,” i.e. if he is forced to sell something, the sale takes effect.

In answer to the Gemara’s query of why this would be true, we are told that everyone who sells really is doing it against his will, yet we accept that he agrees to the sale. Here, too, we view him as having accepted the sale.

We explore involuntary alienation in law and talmud.

Bava Batra 46: רַמָּאֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 46

To download, click/tap here: PDF

From the death of Rava in 352 until the first half of the geonic period, the Pumbedita academy did not occupy a central place in the scholastic and halakhic world. It was subordinate to *Sura, which was granted more privileges than Pumbedita.

Life in a large, bustling, commercial city full of connections with foreign merchants had a deleterious influence on the character of the Jews of Pumbedita.

The Babylonian Talmud has preserved many adverse evaluations of their moral character. Mention is made of the cheating by workers (BB 46a; Ḥul. 127a), and Rava refers to the thieves who would come to the city, as well as the resident thieves (Av. Zar. 70a).

We explore the ancient history of Falluja (Pumpedita) then move on to merchants and thieves elsewhere in the diaspora.

Bava Batra 45: הַנּוֹתֵן טַלִּיתוֹ לְאוּמָּן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 45

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis move on to discuss the Mishna's earlier comment regarding craftspeople having no chazakah. Is this only when a witness sees an owner pay a craftsperson. Otherwise the craftsperson benefits from the principle of migo: he could have benefited from denying having received payment. Then again, migo could be used to explain other possible events. Rabba says that one who accepts a deposit in front of witnesses must return it in front of witnesses as well.

A question is raised, against Abaye. A person gave his garment to a craftsperson who said that he was hired for two while the person says that the craftsperson was hired for one. If the craftsperson has the garment, the person must bring proof of his claim or pay for two.

We explore the notion of mintage vs Halacha/din from differences between ethnic groups in Judaism as well as feminist perspective (the work of Dr Tamar Ross).

Bava Batra 44: : עָשָׂה עַבְדּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ (ἀποθήκη)

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 44

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf someone with a personal, vested interest in a disputed property will not be permitted to testify about that case. Our Gemara examines what might be considered a personal interest in property.

Ravin bar Shmuel quotes Shmuel as saying that if someone sells a field to his friend and stipulates that he does not take responsibility for the sale (she-lo be-aḥarayut, i.e. should the land be taken from him for any reason, he will not return the purchase price), if someone else comes and claims the land, the seller cannot testify on behalf of the purchaser.

We continue our exploration of movables vs property as liens.