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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 3, 2017 | 讝壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 12

Different situations are described where one can’t block off entrances or pathways (even if they belong to them) that others use. 聽Even in a case where there are alternate paths. 聽Are the rabbis viewed as replacements for prophets? 聽Some stories are brought that show that children and mentally handicapped people can prophesize. 聽A firstborn can insist that his double portions be 2 pieces of adjacent lands. 聽Can other brothers insist on that in a case where they already own the land nearby? 聽 Different positions and situations are brought.

讘讬转 住转讜诐 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻专抓 讗转 驻爪讬诪讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

A house that has a sealed entrance still has the four cubits adjoining that entrance because the entrance can be reopened. If one broke its doorposts and sealed the entrance, the entrance is completely negated, and it does not have the four cubits adjoining it.

拽讘专 砖驻转讞讜 住转讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜 驻专抓 讗转 驻爪讬诪讬讜 讜住转诪讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜 讘讬转 住转讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜 驻专抓 讗转 驻爪讬诪讬讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜

There is a similar distinction with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. There is a halakha that a house in which there is a corpse transmits ritual impurity only through its doorways. The baraita continues: A grave whose entrance is sealed does not render all its surroundings ritually impure; the ritual impurity extends only to the area opposite the entrance. But if one broke its doorposts and sealed it, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the grave renders all its surroundings ritually impure, because impurity that has no egress bursts from all sides. Similarly, a house in which there is a corpse that has a sealed entrance does not render all its surroundings ritually impure. But if one broke its doorposts, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the corpse renders all of its surroundings ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讜转 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜讘拽砖讜 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 诇住讜转诪谉 讘谞讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诪注讻讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚诪注讻讘讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诪注讻讘讬

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to alleyways that are open to another city, and through which one would ordinarily travel to reach that other city, if the residents of the city in which the alleyways are located wished to block them off, the residents of the city into which the alleyways open can prevent them from doing so, because they have a right to reach their city via those routes. The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state that they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways when there is no alternative route to reach their town, but they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways even when there is an alternative route.

诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 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 讻讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 专讘讬诐 砖讘专专讜 讚专讱 诇注爪诪谉 诪讛 砖讘专专讜 讘专专讜

This is due to the reasoning that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav says: One is prohibited from ruining a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, i.e., steps may not be taken to prevent people from using it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, as Rav Giddel says: If the public has chosen a route for itself and they walk on it, what they have chosen is chosen, and it cannot be taken away from them.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘拽砖讜 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讛谉 讚诇转讜转 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: With regard to alleyways that open onto a public thoroughfare, if the residents of the alleyways wished to put up doors at the entrance to their alleyways, the people who use the public thoroughfare can prevent them from doing so.

住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛住诪讜讻讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚讞拽讬 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇讬 讟讜讘讗

Some Sages understood from this that this statement applies specifically to the area within four cubits of the public thoroughfare, in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Na岣an says, as Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Na岣an says: The four cubits in an alleyway that are adjacent to the public thoroughfare are considered like the public thoroughfare itself. Consequently, this area has the halakha of a public thoroughfare. But that is not so. There, the ruling of Rav Na岣an was stated with regard to the issue of ritual impurity, with regard to which only the first four cubits of the alleyway are considered like the public thoroughfare. But here, with regard to doors set up at the entrance to the alleyway, sometimes the public thoroughfare becomes crowded with people and they enter far into the alleyway, even farther than four cubits.

讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讚讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讝讛 讜转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讝讛 讻讜壮 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the fundamental halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 locale, even a smaller parcel of land was considered a viable field.

讘讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讬 专讚讜 讬讜诪讗

The Gemara asks: The mishna was taught in Eretz Yisrael; what practice should be followed in Babylonia? Rav Yosef said: In Babylonia, a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day鈥檚 plowing is considered a field; if each of the parties will receive less than that, the field should not be divided.

诪讗讬 讘讬 专讚讜 讬讜诪讗 讗讬 讬讜诪讗 讝专注讗 转专讬 讬讜诪讗 讻专讘讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗讬 讬讜诪讗 讻专讘讗 讬讜诪讗 讚讝专注讗 诇讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: What is meant by a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day鈥檚 plowing? If it means a day鈥檚 plowing in the planting season, i.e., the winter, when it is easy to plow, since the earth has already been turned over at the end of the summer, the field will not require two full days of plowing in the plowing season, i.e., at the end of the summer, when it is more difficult to plow, since the earth is hard and dry. In that case, he will have to pay his summer plowman two days鈥 wages for less than two days of work. And if it means a day鈥檚 plowing in the plowing season, the field will not require a full day of plowing in the planting season. In that case, he will have to pay his winter plowman a full day鈥檚 wages for less than a full day of work.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讬讜诪讗 讚讻专讘讗 讚讻专讬讘 讜转谞讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讬讜诪讗 讚讝专注讗 讘讛讚讜专讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is referring to a day鈥檚 plowing in the plowing season, and the field will still require a full day of plowing in the planting season since he plows once before he sows the seeds and then he repeats the plowing after the seeds are sown. And if you wish, say instead that it is referring to a day鈥檚 plowing in the planting season, and the field will in fact require two full days of plowing in the plowing season if it is rocky ground, on which plowing takes longer.

讚讜讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬 讚讗诇讜 讬讜诪讗 驻专讚住讗 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘转 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉

In connection with this discussion, the Gemara clarifies the conditions under which a cistern, from which its joint owners draw their water, is divided. Rav Na岣an said: It should be divided only if each party will receive the volume of water needed for a day鈥檚 irrigation work. As for an orchard, Shmuel鈥檚 father says: It should be divided only if each party will receive an area large enough to plant three kav, one-third of the measure required for a field.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞转 讘讻专诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬 谞讘讬讗讜转 讘讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 拽住谞讗 转诇转 讗爪讬讗转讛 讘谞讬 转专讬住专 讙讜驻谞讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚专驻讬拽 讙讘专讗 讘讬讜诪讗

That opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to another: I am selling you part of a vineyard, without specifying how much of the vineyard, Sumakhos says: He may not give him less than an area large enough to plant three kav. Rabbi Yosei said: These are nothing other than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement, and it is as if based on prophecy and a heavenly decree, as the seller did not mention any area, but rather spoke in the most general of terms: Part of a vineyard. The Gemara asks: What is the measure with regard to this matter in Babylonia? Rava bar Kisna said: Three rows [atzyata] of twelve vines, which is the area a person can hoe in a single day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讚诪谉 讞讬驻讛 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讬讟诇讛 谞讘讜讗讛 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜谞讬转谞讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗讟讜 讞讻诐 诇讗讜 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬讟诇讛 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讬讟诇讛

搂 In connection with Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement that Sumakhos鈥檚 words are nothing but words of prophecy, the Gemara reports that Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: From the day that the Temple was destroyed prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Sages. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Is that to say that a Sage is not fit to be a prophet? Rabbi Avdimi seems to say that these are two distinct categories of people. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Avdimi is saying: Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Sages.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讜讞讻诐 注讚讬祝 诪谞讘讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讘讗 诇讘讘 讞讻诪讛 诪讬 谞转诇讛 讘诪讬 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 拽讟谉 谞转诇讛 讘讙讚讜诇

Ameimar said: And a Sage is greater than a prophet, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd a prophet has a heart of wisdom鈥 (Psalms 90:12), i.e., he is wise. When comparisons are drawn, who is compared to whom? You must say that the lesser is compared to the greater. Here too, prophecy is compared to wisdom, thus indicating that wisdom is greater than prophecy.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讚注 讚讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪转讗诪专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘谞讬 讞讚 诪讝诇讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讚注 讚讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪转讗诪专讗

Abaye said: Know that this is so, that the Sages still enjoy the prophetic gift, as a great man makes a statement with regard to a point of halakha and the same statement is then cited in the name of a different great man in accordance with his statement, indicating that the Sages makes their statements by way of prophecy. Rava disagreed and said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and since they are similar in their traits, they reach the same conclusions. Rather, Rava said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited

诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘专 诪讝诇讬讛 讛讜讗

in the name of the well-known tanna Rabbi Akiva bar Yosef in accordance with his statement. It certainly cannot be maintained that the first Sage is similar in his nature to the illustrious Rabbi Akiva, so he must have arrived at his statement through prophecy. Rav Ashi said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and with regard to this issue the first Sage has the same understanding as Rabbi Akiva.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讚注 讚讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪转讗诪专讗 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讻住讜诪讗 讘讗专讜讘讛 讜诇讗讜 讟注诐 讬讛讬讘

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai in accordance with his statement. The Sage makes a statement that corresponds to words pronounced in Heaven, which, without prophecy, is beyond human capability. The Gemara states: But perhaps he arrived at this idea by chance, without the assistance of prophecy, like a blind man who makes his way through a skylight. A blind man cannot deliberately find a skylight; therefore, his finding it occurs by chance. The Gemara answers: But does the Sage not offer a reason for his statement? The fact that he demonstrates an understanding of the issue indicates that he does not arrive at his idea by chance, but rather by prophecy.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讬讟诇讛 谞讘讜讗讛 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜谞讬转谞讛 诇砖讜讟讬诐 讜诇转讬谞讜拽讜转 诇砖讜讟讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘专住转拽讗 讚诪讞讜讝讗 砖诪注讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讬砖 诪转讬讘转讗 讚诪诇讬讱 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讞转讬诐 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讞转讬诐 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讘专讘谞谉 讗谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬 砖注转讗 拽诐 讗转讗 讗讚讗转讗 讗讬诪谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗讜转讘讬讛 诇专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 讘专讬砖讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to imbeciles and children. The Gemara explains: In what way was prophecy given to imbeciles? It was like this incident involving Mar bar Rav Ashi, who was standing in the street [beristeka] of Me岣za when he heard a certain imbecile say: The head of the yeshiva who will be appointed in Mata Me岣sya signs his name Tavyumei. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to himself: Who among the Sages signs his name Tavyumei? Nobody but me. Conclude from the statement by the imbecile that my hour has arrived, and I will reap success in this matter. He arose and went to Mata Me岣sya. By the time he arrived, the Sages had already decided to appoint Rav A岣 of Difti as the head of the yeshiva.

讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注讬 讚讗转讗 砖讚讜专 讝讜讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讙讘讬讛 诇讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讘讬讛 注讻讘讬讛 讛讚专 砖讚讜专 讝讜讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讞专讬谞讗 注讻讘讬讛 讙讘讬讛 注讚 讚诪诇讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诇讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 驻转讞 讛讜讗 讜转谞讗 讜讚专砖 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讻诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛

As soon as the Sages heard that Mar bar Rav Ashi had arrived, they determined not to proceed with their appointment without the approval of an important figure such as him. They sent a pair of Sages to him to consult with him, and he detained them. They again sent a pair of Sages to him, and he detained them as well. This continued until they completed a quorum of ten Sages. Once they reached ten men, Mar bar Rav Ashi opened his lecture, taught, and expounded. He did not speak earlier because one should not open a lecture during kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during the months of Elul and Adar, when less than ten men are present. He was then appointed as head of the yeshiva.

拽专讬 专讘 讗讞讗 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讻诇 讛诪专讬注讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讘诪讛专讛 诪讟讬讘讬谉 诇讜 讜讻诇 讛诪讟讬讘讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讘诪讛专讛 诪专讬注讬谉 诇讜

Understanding that he had been passed over for the position, Rav A岣 of Difti read about himself the rabbinic aphorism: Anyone who is treated poorly will not soon be treated well; and anyone who is treated well will not soon be treated poorly. Rav A岣 understood that he had lost the chance to be appointed, whereas Mar bar Rav Ashi had the good fortune to be appointed, and would remain in his position.

转谞讜拽转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讛 讬转讘讛 讘讻谞驻讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 专讘讗 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讬转 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗谞讗 讘转专讗

And in what way was prophecy given to children? It was like this incident involving the daughter of Rav 岣sda, who when she was a child was sitting on her father鈥檚 lap while he sat and learned. Rava and Rami bar 岣ma were sitting before him. Rav 岣sda jokingly said to his daughter: Which of them would you want as a husband? She said: I want both of them. Rava said: And I will be last. And this is what happened; first she married Rami bar 岣ma, and when he died she married Rava.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讚诪谉 讞讬驻讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讬砖转讛 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 诇讘讘讜转 诇讗讞专 砖讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讘 讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 谞讘讜讘 讬诇讘讘 讜讻转讬讘 谞讘讜讘 诇讞转 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 讞诇讬诇 诇讜讞讬谉

Having already cited one statement of Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa, the Gemara cites another statement in his name: Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: Before a person eats and drinks he has two hearts, meaning his heart is unsettled because he is distracted by hunger. But after he eats and drinks he has only one heart, as it is stated: 鈥淎 hollow [nevuv] man is two-hearted鈥 (Job 11:12). How is it indicated that 鈥nevuv鈥 means hungry? As it is written concerning the altar: Nevuv lu岣t (Exodus 27:8), which we translate into Aramaic as: Hollow with planks, meaning that a hollow person, i.e., one who has not yet eaten, is two-hearted.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讙讬诇 讘讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讘讜 讗讟讜诐 讻讘转讜诇讛 讬讬谉 诪驻拽讞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讬专讜砖 讬谞讜讘讘 讘转诇讜转

The Gemara continues to discuss the meaning of nevuv, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: With regard to one who is accustomed to wine, although his heart, i.e., his mind, is closed like a virgin, wine opens it, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd new wine opens [yenovev] the virgins鈥 (Zechariah 9:17). The word yenovev is used here in the sense of clearing out a space: Even if one鈥檚 heart and mind are closed, wine will open them to understanding.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 驻砖讬讟讗 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专 讜讞诇拽 驻砖讜讟 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪爪专讗 讬讘诐 诪讗讬

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the division of property. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is obvious that if a person inherits a portion of his father鈥檚 estate because he is the firstborn, and he also inherits a portion of that estate as an ordinary son, like the rest of his brothers, he is given his two portions along one boundary, so that they are adjacent to one another and form a single property. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to a yavam, a man whose brother died without children, who is obligated by Torah law to marry his deceased brother鈥檚 widow or grant her 岣litza? If he marries his brother鈥檚 widow, the halakha dictates that he receive his brother鈥檚 portion of their father鈥檚 estate in addition to his own. Does he too receive the two portions along one boundary?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讻讜专 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讘讻讜专 讛讜讬讬转讜 讻讘讻讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽转讜 讻讘讻讜专

Abaye said: This case is equal to that case. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One calls the yavam 鈥渇irstborn鈥 (see Yevamot 24a) and therefore he is treated like a firstborn in all regards. He receives the two portions of his father鈥檚 estate as a single parcel of land. But Rava said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be, the firstborn鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6). With regard to his being, i.e., his inheritance itself, he is like a firstborn; but as for the distribution of the estate, he is not like a firstborn, and the brothers are not obligated to give him two adjacent portions.

讛讛讜讗 讚讝讘谉 讗专注讗 讗诪爪专讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 驻诇讙讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讜 诇讬 讗诪爪专讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐

It is reported that a certain person bought land along the boundary of his father鈥檚 property. After some time the father died. When they came to divide the estate, this person said to his brothers: Give me my portion of the estate along my boundary. Rabba said: In a case such as this, the court compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom. The court forces a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. Since it makes no difference to the brothers which portion they receive since the parcels of land must be of equal value, whereas it matters to this brother that the area he receives should be adjacent to the land he already bought, the court forces the others to give this brother his portion along his boundary.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讬 诪注诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讻讬 谞讻住讬 讚讘讬 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝

Rav Yosef objects to this, saying this is not a case involving conduct characteristic of Sodom, since the brothers can explain their refusal to grant the request. The brothers can say to him: We assess this field that you want for yourself as particularly valuable, like the property of the house of bar Maryon. The brothers can claim that the portion he wants is more desirable than the others, and for that reason they do not want to give it to him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, and the brothers can refuse the request.

转专讬 讗专注转讗 讗转专讬 谞讙专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讛讗讬 诪讚讜讬诇 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讚讜讬诇 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝

If a father leaves his two sons two parcels of land next to two water channels [nigrei], and one brother requests the field that is next to a field that he already owns, Rabba says: In a case such as this, the court compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom and allows that brother to receive the field adjoining his own. Rav Yosef objects to this, saying that if the other brother protests and wants that parcel of land, it is not a case involving conduct characteristic of Sodom because he may have a valid reason for objecting: Sometimes this water channel continues running well, while this second one does not continue running well; therefore, the second brother wants to receive land that adjoins a water channel on both sides. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef.

转专转讬 讗讞讚 谞讙专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讚讗驻讬砖 讗专讬住讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讜砖讬 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

If a father leaves his two sons two parcels of land next to one channel and one of the brothers already owns a field next to one of those parcels of land, Rav Yosef said: In a case such as this, the court compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom and allows that brother to receive the field adjoining his own. Abaye objects to this, saying that this is not a case involving conduct characteristic of Sodom because the other brother can say to him: I want the number of sharecroppers to increase. If my field is in the middle and you have fields on either side, you will need more sharecroppers to work them and my field will enjoy greater security. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef because the increase of sharecroppers is considered as nothing, and this is therefore not a valid reason for objecting.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 12

讘讬转 住转讜诐 讬砖 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻专抓 讗转 驻爪讬诪讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转

A house that has a sealed entrance still has the four cubits adjoining that entrance because the entrance can be reopened. If one broke its doorposts and sealed the entrance, the entrance is completely negated, and it does not have the four cubits adjoining it.

拽讘专 砖驻转讞讜 住转讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜 驻专抓 讗转 驻爪讬诪讬讜 讜住转诪讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜 讘讬转 住转讜诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜 驻专抓 讗转 驻爪讬诪讬讜 诪讟诪讗 讻诇 住讘讬讘讬讜

There is a similar distinction with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. There is a halakha that a house in which there is a corpse transmits ritual impurity only through its doorways. The baraita continues: A grave whose entrance is sealed does not render all its surroundings ritually impure; the ritual impurity extends only to the area opposite the entrance. But if one broke its doorposts and sealed it, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the grave renders all its surroundings ritually impure, because impurity that has no egress bursts from all sides. Similarly, a house in which there is a corpse that has a sealed entrance does not render all its surroundings ritually impure. But if one broke its doorposts, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the corpse renders all of its surroundings ritually impure.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讜转 诇注讬专 讗讞专转 讜讘拽砖讜 讘谞讬 讛注讬专 诇住讜转诪谉 讘谞讬 讗讜转讛 讛注讬专 诪注讻讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚诪注讻讘讬 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讬 讗讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诪注讻讘讬

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to alleyways that are open to another city, and through which one would ordinarily travel to reach that other city, if the residents of the city in which the alleyways are located wished to block them off, the residents of the city into which the alleyways open can prevent them from doing so, because they have a right to reach their city via those routes. The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state that they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways when there is no alternative route to reach their town, but they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways even when there is an alternative route.

诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 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 讻讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 专讘讬诐 砖讘专专讜 讚专讱 诇注爪诪谉 诪讛 砖讘专专讜 讘专专讜

This is due to the reasoning that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav says: One is prohibited from ruining a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, i.e., steps may not be taken to prevent people from using it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, as Rav Giddel says: If the public has chosen a route for itself and they walk on it, what they have chosen is chosen, and it cannot be taken away from them.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讘讜讗讜转 讛诪驻讜诇砖讬谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘拽砖讜 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讗讜转 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讛谉 讚诇转讜转 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉

Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: With regard to alleyways that open onto a public thoroughfare, if the residents of the alleyways wished to put up doors at the entrance to their alleyways, the people who use the public thoroughfare can prevent them from doing so.

住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讻讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛住诪讜讻讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚诪讬讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讚讞拽讬 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜注讬讬诇讬 讟讜讘讗

Some Sages understood from this that this statement applies specifically to the area within four cubits of the public thoroughfare, in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Na岣an says, as Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Na岣an says: The four cubits in an alleyway that are adjacent to the public thoroughfare are considered like the public thoroughfare itself. Consequently, this area has the halakha of a public thoroughfare. But that is not so. There, the ruling of Rav Na岣an was stated with regard to the issue of ritual impurity, with regard to which only the first four cubits of the alleyway are considered like the public thoroughfare. But here, with regard to doors set up at the entrance to the alleyway, sometimes the public thoroughfare becomes crowded with people and they enter far into the alleyway, even farther than four cubits.

讜诇讗 讗转 讛砖讚讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讛 转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讝讛 讜转砖注讛 拽讘讬谉 诇讝讛 讻讜壮 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛 讜诪专 讻讬 讗转专讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the fundamental halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 locale, even a smaller parcel of land was considered a viable field.

讘讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讬 专讚讜 讬讜诪讗

The Gemara asks: The mishna was taught in Eretz Yisrael; what practice should be followed in Babylonia? Rav Yosef said: In Babylonia, a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day鈥檚 plowing is considered a field; if each of the parties will receive less than that, the field should not be divided.

诪讗讬 讘讬 专讚讜 讬讜诪讗 讗讬 讬讜诪讗 讝专注讗 转专讬 讬讜诪讗 讻专讘讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讗讬 讬讜诪讗 讻专讘讗 讬讜诪讗 讚讝专注讗 诇讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara asks: What is meant by a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day鈥檚 plowing? If it means a day鈥檚 plowing in the planting season, i.e., the winter, when it is easy to plow, since the earth has already been turned over at the end of the summer, the field will not require two full days of plowing in the plowing season, i.e., at the end of the summer, when it is more difficult to plow, since the earth is hard and dry. In that case, he will have to pay his summer plowman two days鈥 wages for less than two days of work. And if it means a day鈥檚 plowing in the plowing season, the field will not require a full day of plowing in the planting season. In that case, he will have to pay his winter plowman a full day鈥檚 wages for less than a full day of work.

讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讬讜诪讗 讚讻专讘讗 讚讻专讬讘 讜转谞讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讬讜诪讗 讚讝专注讗 讘讛讚讜专讬

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is referring to a day鈥檚 plowing in the plowing season, and the field will still require a full day of plowing in the planting season since he plows once before he sows the seeds and then he repeats the plowing after the seeds are sown. And if you wish, say instead that it is referring to a day鈥檚 plowing in the planting season, and the field will in fact require two full days of plowing in the plowing season if it is rocky ground, on which plowing takes longer.

讚讜讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讬 讚讗诇讜 讬讜诪讗 驻专讚住讗 讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘转 砖诇砖转 拽讘讬谉

In connection with this discussion, the Gemara clarifies the conditions under which a cistern, from which its joint owners draw their water, is divided. Rav Na岣an said: It should be divided only if each party will receive the volume of water needed for a day鈥檚 irrigation work. As for an orchard, Shmuel鈥檚 father says: It should be divided only if each party will receive an area large enough to plant three kav, one-third of the measure required for a field.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 诪谞转 讘讻专诐 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 拽讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬 谞讘讬讗讜转 讘讘讘诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 拽住谞讗 转诇转 讗爪讬讗转讛 讘谞讬 转专讬住专 讙讜驻谞讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚专驻讬拽 讙讘专讗 讘讬讜诪讗

That opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to another: I am selling you part of a vineyard, without specifying how much of the vineyard, Sumakhos says: He may not give him less than an area large enough to plant three kav. Rabbi Yosei said: These are nothing other than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement, and it is as if based on prophecy and a heavenly decree, as the seller did not mention any area, but rather spoke in the most general of terms: Part of a vineyard. The Gemara asks: What is the measure with regard to this matter in Babylonia? Rava bar Kisna said: Three rows [atzyata] of twelve vines, which is the area a person can hoe in a single day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讚诪谉 讞讬驻讛 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讬讟诇讛 谞讘讜讗讛 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜谞讬转谞讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讗讟讜 讞讻诐 诇讗讜 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖谞讬讟诇讛 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗 谞讬讟诇讛

搂 In connection with Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement that Sumakhos鈥檚 words are nothing but words of prophecy, the Gemara reports that Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: From the day that the Temple was destroyed prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Sages. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Is that to say that a Sage is not fit to be a prophet? Rabbi Avdimi seems to say that these are two distinct categories of people. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Avdimi is saying: Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Sages.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讜讞讻诐 注讚讬祝 诪谞讘讬讗 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讘讗 诇讘讘 讞讻诪讛 诪讬 谞转诇讛 讘诪讬 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 拽讟谉 谞转诇讛 讘讙讚讜诇

Ameimar said: And a Sage is greater than a prophet, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd a prophet has a heart of wisdom鈥 (Psalms 90:12), i.e., he is wise. When comparisons are drawn, who is compared to whom? You must say that the lesser is compared to the greater. Here too, prophecy is compared to wisdom, thus indicating that wisdom is greater than prophecy.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讚注 讚讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪转讗诪专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘谞讬 讞讚 诪讝诇讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 转讚注 讚讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪转讗诪专讗

Abaye said: Know that this is so, that the Sages still enjoy the prophetic gift, as a great man makes a statement with regard to a point of halakha and the same statement is then cited in the name of a different great man in accordance with his statement, indicating that the Sages makes their statements by way of prophecy. Rava disagreed and said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and since they are similar in their traits, they reach the same conclusions. Rather, Rava said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited

诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讻讜讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讛讗 诪讬诇转讗 讘专 诪讝诇讬讛 讛讜讗

in the name of the well-known tanna Rabbi Akiva bar Yosef in accordance with his statement. It certainly cannot be maintained that the first Sage is similar in his nature to the illustrious Rabbi Akiva, so he must have arrived at his statement through prophecy. Rav Ashi said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and with regard to this issue the first Sage has the same understanding as Rabbi Akiva.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 转讚注 讚讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪转讗诪专讗 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讻住讜诪讗 讘讗专讜讘讛 讜诇讗讜 讟注诐 讬讛讬讘

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai in accordance with his statement. The Sage makes a statement that corresponds to words pronounced in Heaven, which, without prophecy, is beyond human capability. The Gemara states: But perhaps he arrived at this idea by chance, without the assistance of prophecy, like a blind man who makes his way through a skylight. A blind man cannot deliberately find a skylight; therefore, his finding it occurs by chance. The Gemara answers: But does the Sage not offer a reason for his statement? The fact that he demonstrates an understanding of the issue indicates that he does not arrive at his idea by chance, but rather by prophecy.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 谞讬讟诇讛 谞讘讜讗讛 诪谉 讛谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜谞讬转谞讛 诇砖讜讟讬诐 讜诇转讬谞讜拽讜转 诇砖讜讟讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘专住转拽讗 讚诪讞讜讝讗 砖诪注讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讬砖 诪转讬讘转讗 讚诪诇讬讱 讘诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讞转讬诐 讗诪专 诪讗谉 讞转讬诐 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讘专讘谞谉 讗谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讬讚讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬 砖注转讗 拽诐 讗转讗 讗讚讗转讗 讗讬诪谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗讜转讘讬讛 诇专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 讘专讬砖讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to imbeciles and children. The Gemara explains: In what way was prophecy given to imbeciles? It was like this incident involving Mar bar Rav Ashi, who was standing in the street [beristeka] of Me岣za when he heard a certain imbecile say: The head of the yeshiva who will be appointed in Mata Me岣sya signs his name Tavyumei. Mar bar Rav Ashi said to himself: Who among the Sages signs his name Tavyumei? Nobody but me. Conclude from the statement by the imbecile that my hour has arrived, and I will reap success in this matter. He arose and went to Mata Me岣sya. By the time he arrived, the Sages had already decided to appoint Rav A岣 of Difti as the head of the yeshiva.

讻讬讜谉 讚砖诪注讬 讚讗转讗 砖讚讜专 讝讜讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讙讘讬讛 诇讗讬诪诇讜讻讬 讘讬讛 注讻讘讬讛 讛讚专 砖讚讜专 讝讜讙讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讞专讬谞讗 注讻讘讬讛 讙讘讬讛 注讚 讚诪诇讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诇讜 讘讬 注砖专讛 驻转讞 讛讜讗 讜转谞讗 讜讚专砖 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 讘讻诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪注砖专讛

As soon as the Sages heard that Mar bar Rav Ashi had arrived, they determined not to proceed with their appointment without the approval of an important figure such as him. They sent a pair of Sages to him to consult with him, and he detained them. They again sent a pair of Sages to him, and he detained them as well. This continued until they completed a quorum of ten Sages. Once they reached ten men, Mar bar Rav Ashi opened his lecture, taught, and expounded. He did not speak earlier because one should not open a lecture during kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during the months of Elul and Adar, when less than ten men are present. He was then appointed as head of the yeshiva.

拽专讬 专讘 讗讞讗 讗谞驻砖讬讛 讻诇 讛诪专讬注讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讘诪讛专讛 诪讟讬讘讬谉 诇讜 讜讻诇 讛诪讟讬讘讬谉 诇讜 诇讗 讘诪讛专讛 诪专讬注讬谉 诇讜

Understanding that he had been passed over for the position, Rav A岣 of Difti read about himself the rabbinic aphorism: Anyone who is treated poorly will not soon be treated well; and anyone who is treated well will not soon be treated poorly. Rav A岣 understood that he had lost the chance to be appointed, whereas Mar bar Rav Ashi had the good fortune to be appointed, and would remain in his position.

转谞讜拽转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讘转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讜讛 讬转讘讛 讘讻谞驻讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 专讘讗 讜专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讘注讬转 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗谞讗 讘转专讗

And in what way was prophecy given to children? It was like this incident involving the daughter of Rav 岣sda, who when she was a child was sitting on her father鈥檚 lap while he sat and learned. Rava and Rami bar 岣ma were sitting before him. Rav 岣sda jokingly said to his daughter: Which of them would you want as a husband? She said: I want both of them. Rava said: And I will be last. And this is what happened; first she married Rami bar 岣ma, and when he died she married Rava.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讚诪谉 讞讬驻讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讗讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讬砖转讛 讬砖 诇讜 砖转讬 诇讘讘讜转 诇讗讞专 砖讗讜讻诇 讜砖讜转讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诇讘 讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 谞讘讜讘 讬诇讘讘 讜讻转讬讘 谞讘讜讘 诇讞转 讜诪转专讙诪讬谞谉 讞诇讬诇 诇讜讞讬谉

Having already cited one statement of Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa, the Gemara cites another statement in his name: Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: Before a person eats and drinks he has two hearts, meaning his heart is unsettled because he is distracted by hunger. But after he eats and drinks he has only one heart, as it is stated: 鈥淎 hollow [nevuv] man is two-hearted鈥 (Job 11:12). How is it indicated that 鈥nevuv鈥 means hungry? As it is written concerning the altar: Nevuv lu岣t (Exodus 27:8), which we translate into Aramaic as: Hollow with planks, meaning that a hollow person, i.e., one who has not yet eaten, is two-hearted.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讙讬诇 讘讬讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讘讜 讗讟讜诐 讻讘转讜诇讛 讬讬谉 诪驻拽讞讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讬专讜砖 讬谞讜讘讘 讘转诇讜转

The Gemara continues to discuss the meaning of nevuv, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: With regard to one who is accustomed to wine, although his heart, i.e., his mind, is closed like a virgin, wine opens it, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd new wine opens [yenovev] the virgins鈥 (Zechariah 9:17). The word yenovev is used here in the sense of clearing out a space: Even if one鈥檚 heart and mind are closed, wine will open them to understanding.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 驻砖讬讟讗 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专 讜讞诇拽 驻砖讜讟 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讞讚 诪爪专讗 讬讘诐 诪讗讬

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the division of property. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: It is obvious that if a person inherits a portion of his father鈥檚 estate because he is the firstborn, and he also inherits a portion of that estate as an ordinary son, like the rest of his brothers, he is given his two portions along one boundary, so that they are adjacent to one another and form a single property. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha with regard to a yavam, a man whose brother died without children, who is obligated by Torah law to marry his deceased brother鈥檚 widow or grant her 岣litza? If he marries his brother鈥檚 widow, the halakha dictates that he receive his brother鈥檚 portion of their father鈥檚 estate in addition to his own. Does he too receive the two portions along one boundary?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讻讜专 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛讘讻讜专 讛讜讬讬转讜 讻讘讻讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽转讜 讻讘讻讜专

Abaye said: This case is equal to that case. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One calls the yavam 鈥渇irstborn鈥 (see Yevamot 24a) and therefore he is treated like a firstborn in all regards. He receives the two portions of his father鈥檚 estate as a single parcel of land. But Rava said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be, the firstborn鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:6). With regard to his being, i.e., his inheritance itself, he is like a firstborn; but as for the distribution of the estate, he is not like a firstborn, and the brothers are not obligated to give him two adjacent portions.

讛讛讜讗 讚讝讘谉 讗专注讗 讗诪爪专讗 讚讘讬 谞砖讬讛 讻讬 拽讗 驻诇讙讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讜 诇讬 讗诪爪专讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐

It is reported that a certain person bought land along the boundary of his father鈥檚 property. After some time the father died. When they came to divide the estate, this person said to his brothers: Give me my portion of the estate along my boundary. Rabba said: In a case such as this, the court compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom. The court forces a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. Since it makes no difference to the brothers which portion they receive since the parcels of land must be of equal value, whereas it matters to this brother that the area he receives should be adjacent to the land he already bought, the court forces the others to give this brother his portion along his boundary.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讞讬 诪注诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇讜讬讗 讻讬 谞讻住讬 讚讘讬 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝

Rav Yosef objects to this, saying this is not a case involving conduct characteristic of Sodom, since the brothers can explain their refusal to grant the request. The brothers can say to him: We assess this field that you want for yourself as particularly valuable, like the property of the house of bar Maryon. The brothers can claim that the portion he wants is more desirable than the others, and for that reason they do not want to give it to him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, and the brothers can refuse the request.

转专讬 讗专注转讗 讗转专讬 谞讙专讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讛讗讬 诪讚讜讬诇 讜讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讚讜讬诇 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝

If a father leaves his two sons two parcels of land next to two water channels [nigrei], and one brother requests the field that is next to a field that he already owns, Rabba says: In a case such as this, the court compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom and allows that brother to receive the field adjoining his own. Rav Yosef objects to this, saying that if the other brother protests and wants that parcel of land, it is not a case involving conduct characteristic of Sodom because he may have a valid reason for objecting: Sometimes this water channel continues running well, while this second one does not continue running well; therefore, the second brother wants to receive land that adjoins a water channel on both sides. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef.

转专转讬 讗讞讚 谞讙专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 讝讛 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讚讗驻讬砖 讗专讬住讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讜砖讬 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

If a father leaves his two sons two parcels of land next to one channel and one of the brothers already owns a field next to one of those parcels of land, Rav Yosef said: In a case such as this, the court compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom and allows that brother to receive the field adjoining his own. Abaye objects to this, saying that this is not a case involving conduct characteristic of Sodom because the other brother can say to him: I want the number of sharecroppers to increase. If my field is in the middle and you have fields on either side, you will need more sharecroppers to work them and my field will enjoy greater security. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef because the increase of sharecroppers is considered as nothing, and this is therefore not a valid reason for objecting.

Scroll To Top