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.

Bava Batra 24: מִשּׁוּם נוֹיֵי הָעִיר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf discusses cases where a person is limited in the kinds of building that he can do on his property if it may disturb the needs of the larger community.

The Mishna also forbids planting trees near the city, which is explained by Ulla in the Gemara as a concern with noyei ha-ir – the beauty of the city. Part of the attractiveness of a walled city is having its walls exposed on the outside.

The Gemara asks why this explanation is necessary, given the biblical principle that the cities of the Levites are surrounded by an empty area of 1,000 amot and a further 2,000 amot that are left available for planting vegetation (see Num 35:1-8), and explains that we might have thought that there were exceptions to this rule, but the concern with noyei ha-ir trumps any possible exceptions.

We explore the biblical notion of beauty and comparison with Greek ideals.

The concept of the beauty of Jerusalem and its appropriation by William Blake in his poem.

Bava Batra 23: נִמְצָא בֵּין שְׁנֵי שׁוֹבָכוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah rules that the maximum range of movement of a young dove is up to fifty amos from its dovecote. This was determined by our sages.

Therefore, any dove found within a fifty-amos radius of a dovecote must be assumed to belong to the owner of the dovecote, and it should be returned to him.

The Gemara asks: Must one distance a dovecote only fifty cubits from the city and no more?Is that as far as one can expect a dove to fly? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bava Kamma 79b): One may spread out traps [neshavin] for doves only if this was performed at a distance of at least thirty ris, or four mil, which is eight thousand cubits, from any settled area, to avoid catching birds that belong to another.

Apparently, doves fly a distance of thirty ris, whereas the mishna here states fifty cubits.

We explore the biology phylogeny and use of the dove as a metaphor in antiquity as well as in Tanach.

Bava Batra 22: גְּרָמָא בְּנִיזָּקִין אָסוּר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The new Mishna teaches that one may not build a new wall too close to the old wall of their neighbour's home. One must leave four cubits between the old wall and the new wall. Similarly, one must be careful about the placement of windows. Windows must be four cubits away from walls, whether above or below.

A tradesman who resides outside of a town where his type of business has already been established can be barred from plying his trade in that town.

We explore restrictive commerce and ancient markets.

Bava Batra 21: אִלְמָלֵא הוּא, נִשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf offers the source for public Jewish education.

In the Mishna (20b) we learn that no one in a courtyard can complain if one of the people living there opens a school for children, even if the children are noisy. The Gemara on our daf explains that this is talking about the time period that followed Yehoshua ben Gamla’s innovation. In presenting his enactment, the Gemara opens with a brief review of the history of Jewish education.

We explore modern Jewish educational systems.

Bava Batra 20: בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאֶבֶן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara raises another objection to the assumption that an item for which there is a use does not reduce the dimensions of a window, even if is not susceptible to impurity, from a baraita:

...and a gentile sitting in the window; and a child born after eight months of pregnancy, who is not expected to survive,…

that is placed in the window; and salt; and an earthenware vessel; and a Torah scroll, all these reduce the dimensions of the window.

Consequently, impurity passes through only if there remains an open space of a square handbreadth.

We explore the notions of survival in pregnancy and the ancient belief that the eighth month of gestation alone is more dangerous than later.

Bava Batra 19: מֵי רַגְלַיִם מִן הַכּוֹתֶל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: One must distance his urine three tefachim from the wall of his friend. Rabbah bar bar Chanah said: It is permissible for a man to urinate on the side of another man’s wall, as it is written: And I will cut off from Achav’s house every one that urinates against the wall (every man) and the wealth that is stored in houses, and the animals that are left in the fields of Israel. [Evidently, urinating by a wall was common practice!?]

The Gemora answers: our Mishna is discussing urine which is poured from a pot (and then it requires distancing from a wall). The Gemora asks from a braisa: A man should not urinate on the side of another man’s wall unless he keep three tefachim away.

We explore how urine was used and abused in antiquity (uromancy) and the properties of urine in our times.

Bava Batra 18: דְּבוֹרִים לְחַרְדָּל לָא מַזְּקִי לֵיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava BAtra 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Aside from the examples enumerated in the Mishna, the Gemara quotes a baraita that obligates a neighbor to keep

water in which flax is soaked away from his neighbor’s vegetables

leeks away from his neighbor’s onions, and

mustard plants away from his neighbor’s bees.

With regard to mustard and bees, mustard plants are common in Israel, and their colorful flowers attract bees to them.

Rashi explains that the bees may eat the sharp mustard, which may then lead them to devour their own honey, causing a loss to the beekeeper.

We explore the world of bees in antiquity.

Bava Batra 17: בְּעֶטְיוֹ, שֶׁל נָחָשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara states that "over three people the Yetzer ha'Ra had no dominion" -- Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov, and some say even David ha'Melech.

If the Yetzer ha'Ra had no control over them, then how could they receive reward in Olam ha'Ba for the Mitzvos that they did in this world? Without the influence of the Yetzer ha'Ra, there is no option but to choose to do good, so they would have had no Bechirah, free choice. How, then, could they be rewarded for doing good?

TOSFOS explains that their Yetzer ha'Ra was not entirely curtailed. Rather, since Hash-m saw that they made great efforts to avoid sin, Hash-m helped them and did not let the Yetzer ha'Ra influence them.

We explore the suffering of these righteous figures which begs the very question of theodicy.

Bava Batra 16: הוּא שָׂטָן, הוּא יֵצֶר הָרָע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf covers a lot of agadaic ground. The Gemara begins by continuing the story of Job beginning with Job losing everything that he has been given. Job continues to praise G-d though even G-d tells Satan that Satan moved G-d against Job to destroy him without cause. G-d allowed Satan to cause Job further suffering - anything short of killing him. Rabbi Yitzchak suggests that Satan's suffering was worse than that of Job, for Satan found it so painful to restrict his cruelty.

Reish Lakish suggests that Satan is the same thing as yetzer hara, the evil inclination, and malach hamazet, the Angel of Death. Each is an aspect of the same essence.

We explore this most difficult of characters from different perspectives both Rabbinic and literary.

Bava Batra 15: מֹשֶׁה כּוֹתֵב בְּדֶמַע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On yesterday’s daf we learned that Yehoshua wrote his book (Sefer Yehoshua) and the last eight pesukim of the Torah. On our daf the Gemara points out that there is a difference of opinion regarding the last eight pesukim.

Rabbi Yehuda says that Moshe could not possibly have written the last eight pesukim of the Torah, which open with the words “So Moshe the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab” (Devarim 34:5). How could Moshe be alive and writing that he had died!? Therefore he concludes that Yehoshua completed the last few verses of the Torah.

We explore the rabbinic commentaries as well as the scholarship surrounding this threat to the very integrity of the biblical text.

Bava Batra 14: שִׁבְרֵי לוּחוֹת שֶׁמּוּנָּחִים בָּאָרוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf includes opinions as to what might have been included in the Ark. Two tablets plus the destroyed tablets plus a Torah scroll.

Including the Writings and the Prophets or not?

How might the Prophets have been collected and stored - in groups of twos? or fours?

We explore the scholarship on the Ark of the Covenant, whether one or two!

Bava Batra 13: מַדְבִּיק אָדָם תּוֹרָה נְבִיאִים וּכְתוּבִים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf begins a general discussion about sacred writings. The Sages taught: A person may attach the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings together as one scroll; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Torah should be a scroll by itself, the books of the Prophets a scroll by themselves, and the books of the Writings a scroll by themselves. And the Sages say: Each one of the books of the Prophets and the Writings should be a scroll by itself.

We explore the evolution from scrolls to codices.

Bava Batra 12: נִיטְּלָה נְבוּאָה מִן הַנְּבִיאִים וְנִיתְּנָה לַשּׁוֹטִים וְלַתִּינוֹקוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Avdimi from Chaifah said: Since the day when the First Holy Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the sages.

The Gemara asks: Was a sage not also a prophet?

The Gemara explains: What he meant was that although prophecy has been taken from the prophets (who were not sages), it has not been taken from the sages.

Ameimar said: A sage is even superior to a prophet, as it is written: And a prophet has a heart of wisdom. Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater?

We explore the phenomenon of prophecy with late manifestations in our own day in mental institutions and in the writings of the Nazir.

Bava Batra 11: מַעֲשֶׂה בְמוֹנְבַּז

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Closing the section on the subject of charity, our daf relates the story of King Munbaz, who gave away all of the money in his treasury as well as his ancestors’ treasures to the poor during a year of famine.

Munbaz was the king of Adiabene at the end of the Second Temple period. Adiabene was a small kingdom in the north of Syria on the banks of the Euphrates. In the generation prior to the destruction of the second Temple, Queen Helene, together with her sons Munbaz and Izats, began to study Torah with Jews who traveled through their kingdom, and eventually converted to Judaism. (See Daf Ditty Bava Metziah 54)

We explore the world of Adiabene dynasty, the writings of Josephus and the recent archeological finds of the Tombeau des Rois.