Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 2, 2017 | 讜壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 100

If one takes over a public path going through his property and provides an alternate path, he is not allowed to do that. 聽However, once he designated an alternate path, he can no longer reclaim it as his own. 聽Why is that the case? 聽Regarding the cases in the mishna聽of the minimum size for an individual’s path, public path, etc., some alternate opinions are brought as well as some other cases not mention ed in the mishna聽and some explanations for some of the sizes. 聽Details regarding the ceremony of standing and sitting following a funeral are brought.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 讚专讱 注拽诇转讜谉 讛讬讗 拽专讜讘讛 诇讝讛 讜专讞讜拽讛 诇讝讛

Rav Ashi said: Any alternative path on the side of the original path is considered a circuitous route, as it is close for this person and it is far for that person. While some will benefit from the change, it will be detrimental to others. Therefore, one may never exchange a public path for an alternative path.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 砖拽诇讜 讚讬讚讻讜 讜讛讘讜 诇讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 砖讘专专讜 讚专讱 诇注爪诪诐 诪讛 砖讘专专讜 讘专专讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if a field owner provides an alternative thoroughfare through his field for the public to use, the public may use both thoroughfares. The Gemara suggests: But let him say to them: Take your original thoroughfare back and give me my thoroughfare that I provided you. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: If the public selected a thoroughfare through a privately owned field for themselves even without gaining the permission of the field owner, that which they selected, they selected, and they have the right to use it.

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 讙讝诇谞讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, are the members of the public entitled to be robbers? Why should they be permitted to appropriate land from a private owner? Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Rabbi Eliezer refers only to a case where the public lost a thoroughfare in that field, e.g., the field was plowed over and the original course of the thoroughfare is not known. In such a case, the public has the right to determine the course anew.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪转谞讬 讛讗

The Gemara asks: If so, why does Rabba bar Rav Huna say that Rav says that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? His reasoning seems valid. The Gemara answers: The one who teaches this, i.e., that Rabbi Eliezer is referring to a case where a thoroughfare was lost, does not teach that, i.e., that Rav rules against Rabbi Eliezer. There is a dispute as to what Rav said.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪专 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽诇拽诇讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabba bar Rav Huna, what is the reason the field owner cannot reclaim the alternative thoroughfare that he gave to the public? The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a strip of land that serves as a border between two strips of land that the public took possession of as a public thoroughfare, it is prohibited to destroy it for them, i.e., prevent people from using it. Accordingly, in the case of the mishna, where the field owner actually provided the public with a thoroughfare, he may certainly not take it back.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 讘诪讗讬 拽谞讜 诇讬讛 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诇讱 讘讛 诇讗专讻讛 讜诇专讞讘讛 拽谞讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬诇讜讻讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讬诇讜讱 诪讜注讬诇 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬拽

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, through what means does the public acquire the thoroughfare they choose? The Gemara answers: By means of walking on the thoroughfare, as it is taught in a baraita: If one walked along a field鈥檚 length and its breadth, he has acquired the area inside where he walked, as walking is an effective act of acquisition; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say that by itself, walking is not effective at all to acquire a field, and it is not acquired until he takes possession of it using a legal act of acquisition.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 拽讜诐 讛转讛诇讱 讘讗专抓 诇讗专讻讛 讜诇专讞讘讛 讻讬 诇讱 讗转谞谞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讬讘讜转讗 讚讗讘专讛诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 谞讜讞 诇讻讘讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讬讜

Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written that after God promised Abraham Eretz Yisrael, He instructed him: 鈥淎rise, walk through the land, its length and its breadth; for I will give it to you鈥 (Genesis 13:17), in order that Abraham should thereby acquire the land. And the Rabbis, how do they interpret this verse? They hold that there, in Genesis, it was due to God鈥檚 love of Abraham that he said to him to do this, in order that it would be easy for his descendants to conquer the land. His walking was to demonstrate the divine promise and thereby emphasize his descendants鈥 claim to the land, but it did not effect acquisition of it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讛 诇讛讬诇讜讱 谞拽谞讛 讘讛讬诇讜讱

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a path that passes through vineyards that since the path is made only for walking on it, it can be acquired by means of walking on it.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讚专讬 讟讜谞讗 讚砖讘讬砖转讗 讜讛讚专 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诪住讬讬诪讬谉 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬谉 诪讞讬爪转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讻专注讗 讜诪谞讞 讻专注讗

The Gemara relates an incident involving the allocation of a path through a vineyard: When people came before Rav Yitz岣k bar Ami for judgment with regard to the width of a path through a vineyard that someone had purchased, he said to them: Give him a path wide enough so that one can carry a load [tuna] of vine branches [dishvishta] along it and is able to turn around while holding them. The Gemara comments: And we said this only in a case where the sides of the path are bounded by a fence, which would physically prevent a person from carrying a load of vine branches that are wider than the path, and therefore, if necessary, the path must be widened by breaking down the fence. But where the sides are not bound by a fence, a person carrying a load of vine branches will not be prevented from passing along it. Consequently, he needs only to be given a path wide enough so that he can lift up one foot and place it in front of the other foot.

讚专讱 讛讬讞讬讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转谞讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬注讘讜专 讞诪讜专 讘诪砖讗讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讙诪讚讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: The standard width of a private path is four cubits. It is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: A private path is wide enough so that a donkey can pass on it with his load. Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim. And it is taught in another baraita: The judges of the exile say that the standard width is two and a half cubits. And Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the judges of the exile. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim? The Gemara resolves the contradiction: This definition and that definition are one and the same measure.

讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚专讱 讛讬讞讬讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚专讱 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转

The mishna teaches: The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The Sages taught in a baraita: The standard width of a private path is four cubits. The standard width of a road that goes from city to city is eight cubits.

讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讚专讱 注专讬 诪拽诇讟 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 讗诪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 转讻讬谉 诇讱 讛讚专讱 讚专讱 讛讚专讱

The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. A road leading to one of the cities of refuge must be at least thirty-two cubits wide. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written with regard to the cities of refuge: 鈥淵ou shall prepare for yourself the way, and divide the borders of your land that the Lord, your God, caused you to inherit, into three parts, so that every manslayer may flee there鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:3). Instead of simply stating: A way, the verse states: 鈥淭he way,鈥 to indicate that the road must be twice as wide as a standard public thoroughfare.

讚专讱 讛诪诇讱 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讛诪诇讱 驻讜专抓 讙讚专 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诪诪讞讬谉 讘讬讚讜

The mishna teaches: A king鈥檚 thoroughfare has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is because the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to create a thoroughfare for himself, and none may protest his actions.

讚专讱 讛拽讘专 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚砖讻讘讗

The mishna teaches: The path for those accompanying a deceased person to a grave has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is due to the honor of the deceased.

讛诪注诪讚 讚讬讬谞讬 爪讬驻讜专讬 讗诪专讜 讘转 讗专讘注 拽讘讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 拽讘专讜 讚专讱 拽讘专讜 诪拽讜诐 诪注诪讚讜 讜讘讬转 讛住驻讚讜 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 讻专讞讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a family burial plot, even if one of the family sells the land designated for his own grave to another, or sells the path that will be used by the burial procession to his grave, or sells the place that will be used for standing and comforting his mourners, or sells the site that will be used for his eulogy, his family members may come and bury him in his grave even against the will of the buyer, due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name that would arise if one of the family members was not buried with the rest of his family.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪砖讘注讛 诪注诪讚讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 诇诪转 讻谞讙讚 讛讘诇 讛讘诇讬诐 讗诪专 拽讛诇转 讛讘诇 讛讘诇讬诐 讛讻诇 讛讘诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: On their return from the burial, the mourners would stop after traveling a short distance and would sit to bewail the loss of the deceased. They would then stand and continue journeying for a short while and then repeat the procedure. The mourners perform no fewer than seven standings and sittings in honor of the deceased. These seven correspond to the seven references to 鈥渧anity鈥 in the verse: 鈥淰anity of vanities, says Kohelet; vanity of vanities, all is vanity鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:2), counting the plural term 鈥渧anities鈥 as two references.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪砖讘注讛 诪注诪讚讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 诇诪转 讻讙讜谉 注诪讚讜 讬拽专讬诐 注诪讜讚讜 砖讘讜 讬拽专讬诐 砖讘讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗祝 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: How do they perform this ceremony? Rav Ashi said to him that it is done as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said that in Judea, initially they would perform no fewer than seven standings and sittings in honor of the deceased. One of the procession would make a statement such as: Stand, dear friends, stand, after which the mourners would continue on their journey to their home, and then he would say: Sit down, dear friends, sit down, at which point they would sit. The Rabbis said to him: If so, that this is all that the practice entails, then it should be permitted to do so even on Shabbat, since there is no explicit eulogy or mourning, whereas the custom is not to do so.

讗讞转讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 驻驻讗 讛讜讛 谞住讬讘讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讜讬讗 砖讻讬讘讗 注讘讚 诇讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讟注讛 讘转专转讬 讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讜讛讜讗 注讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讞讜拽讬诐 讜讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讜讗 注讘讚 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬

The Gemara relates: The sister of Rami bar Pappa was married to Rav Avya. When she died Rav Avya performed the practice of standing and sitting for her. Rav Yosef said: He erred in two matters. He erred, as the ceremony is to be performed only with the participation of close family members, and he performed it even with a distant relative. And he erred again, as mourners should perform this ceremony only on the first day of mourning, the day of the burial, and he performed it on the second day.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讛讜讗 注砖讛 讘注讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 讜讛转诐 诇讗 谞讛讜讙

Abaye said: He also erred in this, as mourners should perform the ceremony only in the cemetery, but he performed it in the city. Rava said: He also erred in this, as mourners should perform it only in a locale where people are accustomed do so, but there, where he performed it, it was not the custom to do so.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗祝 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讚讗诪讟讬讜讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

The Gemara raises an objection to the claims of Rav Yosef and Abaye from the baraita cited above: The Rabbis said to him: If so, that this is all that the practice entails, then it should be permitted to do so even on Shabbat. The Gemara explains the objection: And if you say, as Abaye did, that the ceremony should be performed only in the cemetery, or, as Rav Yosef did, on the first day, then how could it occur that the ceremony would be performed on Shabbat; what would anyone want to be doing in a cemetery on Shabbat, when it is prohibited to perform a burial? The Gemara explains: It could happen in a city that is close to the cemetery, and this is a case where they brought the deceased for burial at twilight just before Shabbat began, so that the return journey took place on Shabbat itself.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 诪拽讜诐 诇讞讘专讜 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 拽讘专 讜讻谉 讛诪拽讘诇 诪讞讘专讜 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 拽讘专 注讜砖讛 转讜讻讛 砖诇 诪注专讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 砖砖 讜驻讜转讞 诇转讜讻讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讻讜讻讬谉 砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讻谞讙讚谉 讜讻讜讻讬谉 讗专讻谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜专讜诪谉 砖讘注

MISHNA: There is the case of one who sells a plot of land to another in order for him to construct for himself an underground catacomb, and similarly the case of a contractor who receives a plot of land from another under a commission to construct for him a catacomb. If the size of the catacomb was not specified, then he should make the inside of each burial chamber four cubits wide by six cubits long and open up into the chamber, by digging into its walls, eight burial niches [kukhin] in which the coffins will rest. Three niches should be opened up from the wall here, along the length of the chamber, and three from there, along the other side, and two niches from the wall facing the entrance. And these niches should be formed so that their length is four cubits and their height is seven handbreadths,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 100

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 100

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 讚专讱 注拽诇转讜谉 讛讬讗 拽专讜讘讛 诇讝讛 讜专讞讜拽讛 诇讝讛

Rav Ashi said: Any alternative path on the side of the original path is considered a circuitous route, as it is close for this person and it is far for that person. While some will benefit from the change, it will be detrimental to others. Therefore, one may never exchange a public path for an alternative path.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 砖拽诇讜 讚讬讚讻讜 讜讛讘讜 诇讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 砖讘专专讜 讚专讱 诇注爪诪诐 诪讛 砖讘专专讜 讘专专讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if a field owner provides an alternative thoroughfare through his field for the public to use, the public may use both thoroughfares. The Gemara suggests: But let him say to them: Take your original thoroughfare back and give me my thoroughfare that I provided you. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: If the public selected a thoroughfare through a privately owned field for themselves even without gaining the permission of the field owner, that which they selected, they selected, and they have the right to use it.

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 讙讝诇谞讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讛谉 讚专讱 讘讗讜转讛 砖讚讛

The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, are the members of the public entitled to be robbers? Why should they be permitted to appropriate land from a private owner? Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Rabbi Eliezer refers only to a case where the public lost a thoroughfare in that field, e.g., the field was plowed over and the original course of the thoroughfare is not known. In such a case, the public has the right to determine the course anew.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讛讗 诇讗 诪转谞讬 讛讗

The Gemara asks: If so, why does Rabba bar Rav Huna say that Rav says that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? His reasoning seems valid. The Gemara answers: The one who teaches this, i.e., that Rabbi Eliezer is referring to a case where a thoroughfare was lost, does not teach that, i.e., that Rav rules against Rabbi Eliezer. There is a dispute as to what Rav said.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪专 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽诇拽诇讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabba bar Rav Huna, what is the reason the field owner cannot reclaim the alternative thoroughfare that he gave to the public? The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a strip of land that serves as a border between two strips of land that the public took possession of as a public thoroughfare, it is prohibited to destroy it for them, i.e., prevent people from using it. Accordingly, in the case of the mishna, where the field owner actually provided the public with a thoroughfare, he may certainly not take it back.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬诐 讘诪讗讬 拽谞讜 诇讬讛 讘讛讬诇讜讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诇讱 讘讛 诇讗专讻讛 讜诇专讞讘讛 拽谞讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讬诇讜讻讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讬诇讜讱 诪讜注讬诇 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬拽

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, through what means does the public acquire the thoroughfare they choose? The Gemara answers: By means of walking on the thoroughfare, as it is taught in a baraita: If one walked along a field鈥檚 length and its breadth, he has acquired the area inside where he walked, as walking is an effective act of acquisition; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say that by itself, walking is not effective at all to acquire a field, and it is not acquired until he takes possession of it using a legal act of acquisition.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 拽讜诐 讛转讛诇讱 讘讗专抓 诇讗专讻讛 讜诇专讞讘讛 讻讬 诇讱 讗转谞谞讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讞讘讬讘讜转讗 讚讗讘专讛诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 谞讜讞 诇讻讘讜砖 诇驻谞讬 讘谞讬讜

Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written that after God promised Abraham Eretz Yisrael, He instructed him: 鈥淎rise, walk through the land, its length and its breadth; for I will give it to you鈥 (Genesis 13:17), in order that Abraham should thereby acquire the land. And the Rabbis, how do they interpret this verse? They hold that there, in Genesis, it was due to God鈥檚 love of Abraham that he said to him to do this, in order that it would be easy for his descendants to conquer the land. His walking was to demonstrate the divine promise and thereby emphasize his descendants鈥 claim to the land, but it did not effect acquisition of it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇 讻专诪讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞注砖讛 诇讛讬诇讜讱 谞拽谞讛 讘讛讬诇讜讱

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a path that passes through vineyards that since the path is made only for walking on it, it can be acquired by means of walking on it.

讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讚专讬 讟讜谞讗 讚砖讘讬砖转讗 讜讛讚专 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诪住讬讬诪讬谉 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪住讬讬诪讬谉 诪讞讬爪转讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖拽讬诇 讻专注讗 讜诪谞讞 讻专注讗

The Gemara relates an incident involving the allocation of a path through a vineyard: When people came before Rav Yitz岣k bar Ami for judgment with regard to the width of a path through a vineyard that someone had purchased, he said to them: Give him a path wide enough so that one can carry a load [tuna] of vine branches [dishvishta] along it and is able to turn around while holding them. The Gemara comments: And we said this only in a case where the sides of the path are bounded by a fence, which would physically prevent a person from carrying a load of vine branches that are wider than the path, and therefore, if necessary, the path must be widened by breaking down the fence. But where the sides are not bound by a fence, a person carrying a load of vine branches will not be prevented from passing along it. Consequently, he needs only to be given a path wide enough so that he can lift up one foot and place it in front of the other foot.

讚专讱 讛讬讞讬讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 转谞讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬注讘讜专 讞诪讜专 讘诪砖讗讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讙诪讚讬诐 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讞专讬诐 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞讚 砖讬注讜专讗 讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches: The standard width of a private path is four cubits. It is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say: A private path is wide enough so that a donkey can pass on it with his load. Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim. And it is taught in another baraita: The judges of the exile say that the standard width is two and a half cubits. And Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the judges of the exile. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of A岣rim? The Gemara resolves the contradiction: This definition and that definition are one and the same measure.

讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚专讱 讛讬讞讬讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚专讱 诪注讬专 诇注讬专 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转

The mishna teaches: The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The Sages taught in a baraita: The standard width of a private path is four cubits. The standard width of a road that goes from city to city is eight cubits.

讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讚专讱 注专讬 诪拽诇讟 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 讗诪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 转讻讬谉 诇讱 讛讚专讱 讚专讱 讛讚专讱

The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. A road leading to one of the cities of refuge must be at least thirty-two cubits wide. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written with regard to the cities of refuge: 鈥淵ou shall prepare for yourself the way, and divide the borders of your land that the Lord, your God, caused you to inherit, into three parts, so that every manslayer may flee there鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:3). Instead of simply stating: A way, the verse states: 鈥淭he way,鈥 to indicate that the road must be twice as wide as a standard public thoroughfare.

讚专讱 讛诪诇讱 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 砖讛诪诇讱 驻讜专抓 讙讚专 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讚专讱 讜讗讬谉 诪诪讞讬谉 讘讬讚讜

The mishna teaches: A king鈥檚 thoroughfare has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is because the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to create a thoroughfare for himself, and none may protest his actions.

讚专讱 讛拽讘专 讗讬谉 诇讛 砖讬注讜专 诪砖讜诐 讬拽专讗 讚砖讻讘讗

The mishna teaches: The path for those accompanying a deceased person to a grave has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is due to the honor of the deceased.

讛诪注诪讚 讚讬讬谞讬 爪讬驻讜专讬 讗诪专讜 讘转 讗专讘注 拽讘讬谉 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 拽讘专讜 讚专讱 拽讘专讜 诪拽讜诐 诪注诪讚讜 讜讘讬转 讛住驻讚讜 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讜 注诇 讻专讞讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 诪砖驻讞讛

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a family burial plot, even if one of the family sells the land designated for his own grave to another, or sells the path that will be used by the burial procession to his grave, or sells the place that will be used for standing and comforting his mourners, or sells the site that will be used for his eulogy, his family members may come and bury him in his grave even against the will of the buyer, due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name that would arise if one of the family members was not buried with the rest of his family.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪砖讘注讛 诪注诪讚讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 诇诪转 讻谞讙讚 讛讘诇 讛讘诇讬诐 讗诪专 拽讛诇转 讛讘诇 讛讘诇讬诐 讛讻诇 讛讘诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: On their return from the burial, the mourners would stop after traveling a short distance and would sit to bewail the loss of the deceased. They would then stand and continue journeying for a short while and then repeat the procedure. The mourners perform no fewer than seven standings and sittings in honor of the deceased. These seven correspond to the seven references to 鈥渧anity鈥 in the verse: 鈥淰anity of vanities, says Kohelet; vanity of vanities, all is vanity鈥 (Ecclesiastes 1:2), counting the plural term 鈥渧anities鈥 as two references.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪砖讘注讛 诪注诪讚讜转 讜诪讜砖讘讜转 诇诪转 讻讙讜谉 注诪讚讜 讬拽专讬诐 注诪讜讚讜 砖讘讜 讬拽专讬诐 砖讘讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗祝 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: How do they perform this ceremony? Rav Ashi said to him that it is done as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said that in Judea, initially they would perform no fewer than seven standings and sittings in honor of the deceased. One of the procession would make a statement such as: Stand, dear friends, stand, after which the mourners would continue on their journey to their home, and then he would say: Sit down, dear friends, sit down, at which point they would sit. The Rabbis said to him: If so, that this is all that the practice entails, then it should be permitted to do so even on Shabbat, since there is no explicit eulogy or mourning, whereas the custom is not to do so.

讗讞转讬讛 讚专诪讬 讘专 驻驻讗 讛讜讛 谞住讬讘讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讜讬讗 砖讻讬讘讗 注讘讚 诇讛 诪注诪讚 讜诪讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讟注讛 讘转专转讬 讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讜讛讜讗 注讘讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讞讜拽讬诐 讜讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讜讗 注讘讚 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬

The Gemara relates: The sister of Rami bar Pappa was married to Rav Avya. When she died Rav Avya performed the practice of standing and sitting for her. Rav Yosef said: He erred in two matters. He erred, as the ceremony is to be performed only with the participation of close family members, and he performed it even with a distant relative. And he erred again, as mourners should perform this ceremony only on the first day of mourning, the day of the burial, and he performed it on the second day.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讛讜讗 注砖讛 讘注讬专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 讟注讛 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 讜讛转诐 诇讗 谞讛讜讙

Abaye said: He also erred in this, as mourners should perform the ceremony only in the cemetery, but he performed it in the city. Rava said: He also erred in this, as mourners should perform it only in a locale where people are accustomed do so, but there, where he performed it, it was not the custom to do so.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 讗祝 讘砖讘转 诪讜转专 诇注砖讜转 讻谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讘砖讘转 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讘注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讚讗诪讟讬讜讛讜 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

The Gemara raises an objection to the claims of Rav Yosef and Abaye from the baraita cited above: The Rabbis said to him: If so, that this is all that the practice entails, then it should be permitted to do so even on Shabbat. The Gemara explains the objection: And if you say, as Abaye did, that the ceremony should be performed only in the cemetery, or, as Rav Yosef did, on the first day, then how could it occur that the ceremony would be performed on Shabbat; what would anyone want to be doing in a cemetery on Shabbat, when it is prohibited to perform a burial? The Gemara explains: It could happen in a city that is close to the cemetery, and this is a case where they brought the deceased for burial at twilight just before Shabbat began, so that the return journey took place on Shabbat itself.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 诪拽讜诐 诇讞讘专讜 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 拽讘专 讜讻谉 讛诪拽讘诇 诪讞讘专讜 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 拽讘专 注讜砖讛 转讜讻讛 砖诇 诪注专讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 注诇 砖砖 讜驻讜转讞 诇转讜讻讛 砖诪讜谞讛 讻讜讻讬谉 砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖诇砖 诪讻讗谉 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讻谞讙讚谉 讜讻讜讻讬谉 讗专讻谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜专讜诪谉 砖讘注

MISHNA: There is the case of one who sells a plot of land to another in order for him to construct for himself an underground catacomb, and similarly the case of a contractor who receives a plot of land from another under a commission to construct for him a catacomb. If the size of the catacomb was not specified, then he should make the inside of each burial chamber four cubits wide by six cubits long and open up into the chamber, by digging into its walls, eight burial niches [kukhin] in which the coffins will rest. Three niches should be opened up from the wall here, along the length of the chamber, and three from there, along the other side, and two niches from the wall facing the entrance. And these niches should be formed so that their length is four cubits and their height is seven handbreadths,

Scroll To Top