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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 14, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘砖讘讟 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 23

One needs to distance one’s ladder on a shared wall from another’s dovecote 4 cubits so that a mongoose doesn’t climb up and eat the doves. 聽In the context of this, the gemara raises issues of indirect damages and that one cannot lay a claim to land via chazaka聽in a case where is causes damages. 聽However, the latter one is narrowed to very specific types of damages. 聽One needs to distance one’s dovecote from a city and other fields a certain distance to prevent one’s doves from eating seeds or grains of others. 聽But if one purchased a field that had a dovecote within a short distance from one’s neighbor, one can assume that it was done within the law (the neighbor allowed it or was compensated financially). 聽The mishna discusses laws relating to a chick found in a certain area – how does one determine to whom the chick belongs? 聽Rabbi Chanina says that in determining uncertainties, and there is a majority factor and a proximity factor that each lead to different conclusions, one follows the majority. 聽Three cases are brought (including our mishna) that seem to indicate proximity would be the more compelling factor. 聽Each one is resolved.


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

讗转讜 讗讜诪谞讬 讜讬转讘讬 转讜转讬讬讛讜 讜讗转讜 注讜专讘讬 讗讻诇讬 讚诪讗 讜住诇拽讬 讗讘讬 转讗诇讬 讜诪驻住讚讬 转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬拽讜 诇讬 拽讜专拽讜专 诪讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 诪转谞讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讙专诪讗 讘谞讬讝拽讬谉 讗住讜专

bloodletters would come and sit beneath them and perform their work there, and crows would come, eat the blood, and fly up to the palm trees and damage the dates. Rav Yosef said to the bloodletters: Remove these crowing birds from here, i.e., leave in order to avoid further damage. Abaye said to him: But it is an indirect action, as the bloodletters themselves are not damaging the dates. Rav Yosef said to him that Rav Tovi bar Mattana said as follows: That is to say that it is prohibited to cause even indirect damage.

讜讛讗 讗讞讝讬拽 [诇讛讜] 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讞讝拽讛 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讘拽讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗谞讬谞讗 讚注转讗讬 讻讬 拽讜讟专讗 讜讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讚诪讜 诇讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But they have established an acquired privilege to use that particular spot for their work. Rav Yosef replied: Doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh says: There is no acquired privilege of use in cases of damage, i.e., an established situation may not be allowed to continue in the event that damage results. Abaye inquired further: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that statement of Rav Na岣an that Rav Mari said it is referring specifically to smoke, and Rav Zevid said it is referring to a bathroom? In other words, this principle was stated specifically in the context of damage caused by these substances. Rav Yosef said to him: For me, as I am sensitive, these are like smoke and a bathroom to me, which is why I have the right to demand that the bloodletters leave.

诪转谞讬壮 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 砖讜讘讱 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗专讘注转 讻讜专讬谉 诪诇讗 砖讙专 讛讬讜谞讛 讜讗诐 诇拽讞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 专讜讘注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转讜

MISHNA: One must distance a dovecote fifty cubits from the city to prevent doves from eating seeds in the town. And a person should not establish a dovecote within his own property unless he has fifty cubits in each direction between the dovecote and the edge of his property. Rabbi Yehuda says that one must have surrounding the dovecote the area required for sowing four kor of seed on each side, which generally extends as far as a dove flies in a single flight. And if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of its use even if it has surrounding it only the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova] around it, and he need not remove it from there.

讙诪壮 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 驻讜专住讬谉 谞砖讘讬谉 诇讬讜谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 专讞讜拽 诪谉 讛讬砖讜讘 砖诇砖讬诐 专讬住

GEMARA: 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬砖讟 砖讬讬讟讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讻专住讬讬讛讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪转讗 诪诇讬讗 讜诪讬砖讟 砖诇砖讬诐 专讬住 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讘讬砖讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 诪讬诇 诇讗 讬驻专讜住 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 讻专诪讬诐

Abaye said: Doves do fly great distances, which is why one must avoid catching others鈥 birds by keeping traps thirty ris away from settled areas. But as they eat along their way, their stomachs are filled after a distance of fifty cubits, at which point they will do no more damage to seeds. The Gemara asks: And do they fly only thirty ris and no more? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: And in a settled area, one may not spread out a trap even if the area under his control extends as far as one hundred mil in each direction? Rav Yosef says: That baraita is referring to a settled area of vineyards, i.e., a contiguous region of vineyards and gardens. In that case the doves pass from place to place even over a great distance.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 砖讜讘讻讬谉 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讜讘讻讬谉 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讙讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讛驻拽专

Rava said: The baraita is referring to a settled area of dovecotes, i.e., where many dovecotes are distributed. The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, let the tanna derive that one may not establish a new dovecote there due to the other dovecotes themselves, as he will trap doves belonging to others. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that this is referring to his own dovecotes. And if you wish, say it is referring to the dovecotes of a gentile, whose property one is not obligated to protect from harm. And if you wish, say it is referring to ownerless dovecotes.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗专讘注转 讻讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讟讜注谞讬谉 诇讬讜专砖

Rabbi Yehuda says that one must have surrounding the dovecote the area required for sowing four kor of seed on each side, which is as far as a dove flies in a single flight. And if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of its use. Rav Pappa said, and some say it was Rav Zevid: That is to say that a court issues a claim on behalf of a buyer, and issues a claim on behalf of an heir. This is referring to the halakha of taking possession. If one has been physically in possession of an item for a period of time, generally three years, this serves as proof that he is in fact the legal owner. This possession must be accompanied by a claim of how one acquired the item; he cannot simply state that no one protested his possessing the item for three years. Rav Pappa is saying that the court will lodge a claim on behalf of a buyer or heir that they acquired the item from someone who was the owner, just as here the court assumes that the previous owner of the dovecote came to an agreement with his neighbors that he may use it.

讬讜专砖 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讟注谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诇拽讞 讞爪专 讜讘讛 讝讬讝讬谉 讜讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讞讝拽转讛

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary for Rav Pappa to state this halakha? We already learn this with regard to an heir (41a): In the case of land that comes as an inheritance, one is not required to make a claim as to how the land came into his benefactor鈥檚 possession when one鈥檚 ownership of the land is challenged. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state this halakha with regard to a buyer. The Gemara asks: With regard to a buyer as well, we learn this in a mishna (60a): If one bought a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies [ugzuztraot] extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, i.e., the owner has the acquired privilege of their use, and the court does not demand their removal.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 讙讘讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讗讬诪讜专 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讜诇 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna of the mishna to state this halakha in both cases, as, if he had taught us this only there, in that mishna, one might have said that it applies specifically with regard to a protrusion or a balcony that extends into the public domain, as one can say that perhaps it is a case where the seller had drawn back into his own land before adding the projections and balconies, and they in fact do not extend into the public thoroughfare. Alternatively, perhaps the public waived their right to him and allowed him to place them over the common area, as otherwise they would have protested. But here, where he causes damage to private individuals, one might have thought that the buyer does not have a privilege of use, and therefore the mishna teaches us otherwise.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 驻讬讜住讬讛 驻讬讬住讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 专讘讬诐 诪讗谉 驻讬讬住 讜诪讗谉 砖讘讬拽 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if he had taught this only in the mishna here, one might say that since the party potentially suffering damage is an individual, the owner of the dovecote appeased his neighbor by paying him to permit him to construct it. Alternatively, the neighbor might have waived his right to him. But in a case where damage is caused to the public, one might argue: Whom did he appease, and who yielded to him? Consequently, one might say that the purchaser does not retain the privilege of use. Therefore, it is necessary for the tanna to state the halakha in this case as well.

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转讜 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讞讝拽讛 诇谞讝拽讬谉 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讘拽讜讟专讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of use. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh says: There is no acquired privilege of use for cases of damage? Why should he retain his acquired privilege of use when his doves cause damage? Rav Mari said: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement is referring specifically to smoke, which causes serious damage, and that is why it overrides an acquired privilege. Rav Zevid said: It is referring to a bathroom, whose odor is particularly strong.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讬驻讜诇 讛谞诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛砖讜讘讱 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜爪讗讜 谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讜讘讻讜转 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜

MISHNA: With regard to a dove chick [nippul] that was found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. If it was found beyond fifty cubits from a dovecote, it belongs to its finder. In a case where it was found between two dovecotes, if it was close to this one, it belongs to the owner of this dovecote; if it was close to that one, it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. If it was half and half, i.e., equidistant from the two dovecotes, the two owners divide the value of the chick.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讜讘 讜拽专讜讘 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讜讘讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽讜专讘讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 专讜讘讗 注讚讬祝

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣nina says: When resolving an uncertainty with regard to the halakhic status of an item, e.g., a found item, if the status of the majority of like items indicates that it has one status but the item in question is proximate to a source that indicates otherwise, one follows the majority. And even though the halakha of majority applies by Torah law and the halakha of proximity also applies by Torah law, even so the majority is preferable.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛注讬专 讛拽专讘讛 讗诇 讛讞诇诇 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚谞驻讬砖讗 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from the Torah鈥檚 statement with regard to a murder victim where the identity of the murderer is unknown. In a case of this kind, the court measures the distances between the corpse and the nearby towns, in order to determine which town is closest and must consequently perform the rite of the heifer whose neck is broken. The verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be, that the city that is nearest to the slain man, the Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd鈥nd shall break the heifer鈥檚 neck鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3鈥4). And this town is chosen even though there might be another town that is larger in population than it. According to Rabbi 岣nina, in a case of this kind one should follow the majority.

讘讚诇讬讻讗 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛讛专讬诐

The Gemara answers: This verse is referring to a situation where there is no other town that is larger than that one. The Gemara asks: And still, if one follows the majority, why should the court follow the closest city? Let us follow the majority of the world, as most people are found elsewhere. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the city sits in isolation between mountains, and therefore it is unlikely that the murderer arrived from elsewhere.

转谞谉 谞讬驻讜诇 讛谞诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛砖讜讘讱 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚谞驻讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讚诇讬讻讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of majority as opposed to proximity. We learned in the mishna: With regard to a dove chick that was found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. And as the mishna does not make a distinction between different cases, it indicates that this is the halakha even though there is another dovecote that is larger than the proximate one in terms of number of birds. This shows that closeness, not majority, is the determining factor. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where there is no other dovecote in the area.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜爪讗讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讛讛讜讗 谞驻诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讚讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诇 讛诪讚讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讚讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讞诪砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If it was found beyond fifty cubits from a dovecote, it belongs to its finder. And if there is no other dovecote in the area, it certainly fell from that dovecote. How, then, can it be given to the finder? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a chick that hops from place to place but does not yet fly. As Rav Ukva bar 岣ma says: With regard to any creature that hops, it does not hop more than fifty cubits. Consequently, any bird found within fifty cubits of a dovecote is assumed to have come from there. If it is farther away than that, it likely came from elsewhere or was dropped by travelers.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诪讛讜 讜注诇 讚讗 讗驻拽讜讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讘讬 诪讚专砖讗

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one leg of the chick was within fifty cubits of the dovecote, and one leg was beyond fifty cubits, what is the halakha? The Gemara comments: And it was for his question about this far-fetched scenario that they removed Rabbi Yirmeya from the study hall, as he was apparently wasting the Sages鈥 time.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讜讘讻讜转 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 讜拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞驻讬砖 诪讞讘专讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the mishna: In a case where it was found between two dovecotes, if it was close to this one, it belongs to the owner of this dovecote; if it was close to that one, it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. The Gemara comments: And this is the halakha even though one of them is greater in number of birds than the other one. Apparently, one rules based on proximity, not majority. The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a situation where the two dovecotes are equal in size. The Gemara asks: But even so, why should one follow the closer dovecote? Let us follow the majority of the world, as there are many other dovecotes besides these, and the number of doves they contain is greater. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here?

  • 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 Shlemah 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 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 23

讗转讜 讗讜诪谞讬 讜讬转讘讬 转讜转讬讬讛讜 讜讗转讜 注讜专讘讬 讗讻诇讬 讚诪讗 讜住诇拽讬 讗讘讬 转讗诇讬 讜诪驻住讚讬 转诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗驻讬拽讜 诇讬 拽讜专拽讜专 诪讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 诪转谞讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讙专诪讗 讘谞讬讝拽讬谉 讗住讜专

bloodletters would come and sit beneath them and perform their work there, and crows would come, eat the blood, and fly up to the palm trees and damage the dates. Rav Yosef said to the bloodletters: Remove these crowing birds from here, i.e., leave in order to avoid further damage. Abaye said to him: But it is an indirect action, as the bloodletters themselves are not damaging the dates. Rav Yosef said to him that Rav Tovi bar Mattana said as follows: That is to say that it is prohibited to cause even indirect damage.

讜讛讗 讗讞讝讬拽 [诇讛讜] 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讞讝拽讛 诇谞讝拽讬谉 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讘拽讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗谞讬谞讗 讚注转讗讬 讻讬 拽讜讟专讗 讜讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讚诪讜 诇讬

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But they have established an acquired privilege to use that particular spot for their work. Rav Yosef replied: Doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh says: There is no acquired privilege of use in cases of damage, i.e., an established situation may not be allowed to continue in the event that damage results. Abaye inquired further: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to that statement of Rav Na岣an that Rav Mari said it is referring specifically to smoke, and Rav Zevid said it is referring to a bathroom? In other words, this principle was stated specifically in the context of damage caused by these substances. Rav Yosef said to him: For me, as I am sensitive, these are like smoke and a bathroom to me, which is why I have the right to demand that the bloodletters leave.

诪转谞讬壮 诪专讞讬拽讬谉 讗转 讛砖讜讘讱 诪谉 讛注讬专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜诇讗 讬注砖讛 讗讚诐 砖讜讘讱 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诇讻诇 专讜讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗专讘注转 讻讜专讬谉 诪诇讗 砖讙专 讛讬讜谞讛 讜讗诐 诇拽讞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 专讜讘注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转讜

MISHNA: One must distance a dovecote fifty cubits from the city to prevent doves from eating seeds in the town. And a person should not establish a dovecote within his own property unless he has fifty cubits in each direction between the dovecote and the edge of his property. Rabbi Yehuda says that one must have surrounding the dovecote the area required for sowing four kor of seed on each side, which generally extends as far as a dove flies in a single flight. And if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of its use even if it has surrounding it only the area required for sowing a quarter-kav of seed [beit rova] around it, and he need not remove it from there.

讙诪壮 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜转讜 诇讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讬谉 驻讜专住讬谉 谞砖讘讬谉 诇讬讜谞讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 专讞讜拽 诪谉 讛讬砖讜讘 砖诇砖讬诐 专讬住

GEMARA: 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讬砖讟 砖讬讬讟讬 讟讜讘讗 讜讻专住讬讬讛讜 讘讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪转讗 诪诇讬讗 讜诪讬砖讟 砖诇砖讬诐 专讬住 讜转讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讘讬砖讜讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 诪讬诇 诇讗 讬驻专讜住 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 讻专诪讬诐

Abaye said: Doves do fly great distances, which is why one must avoid catching others鈥 birds by keeping traps thirty ris away from settled areas. But as they eat along their way, their stomachs are filled after a distance of fifty cubits, at which point they will do no more damage to seeds. The Gemara asks: And do they fly only thirty ris and no more? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: And in a settled area, one may not spread out a trap even if the area under his control extends as far as one hundred mil in each direction? Rav Yosef says: That baraita is referring to a settled area of vineyards, i.e., a contiguous region of vineyards and gardens. In that case the doves pass from place to place even over a great distance.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讬砖讜讘 砖讜讘讻讬谉 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讜讘讻讬谉 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讙讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讛驻拽专

Rava said: The baraita is referring to a settled area of dovecotes, i.e., where many dovecotes are distributed. The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, let the tanna derive that one may not establish a new dovecote there due to the other dovecotes themselves, as he will trap doves belonging to others. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that this is referring to his own dovecotes. And if you wish, say it is referring to the dovecotes of a gentile, whose property one is not obligated to protect from harm. And if you wish, say it is referring to ownerless dovecotes.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗专讘注转 讻讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讟讜注谞讬谉 诇诇讜拽讞 讜讟讜注谞讬谉 诇讬讜专砖

Rabbi Yehuda says that one must have surrounding the dovecote the area required for sowing four kor of seed on each side, which is as far as a dove flies in a single flight. And if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of its use. Rav Pappa said, and some say it was Rav Zevid: That is to say that a court issues a claim on behalf of a buyer, and issues a claim on behalf of an heir. This is referring to the halakha of taking possession. If one has been physically in possession of an item for a period of time, generally three years, this serves as proof that he is in fact the legal owner. This possession must be accompanied by a claim of how one acquired the item; he cannot simply state that no one protested his possessing the item for three years. Rav Pappa is saying that the court will lodge a claim on behalf of a buyer or heir that they acquired the item from someone who was the owner, just as here the court assumes that the previous owner of the dovecote came to an agreement with his neighbors that he may use it.

讬讜专砖 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讟注谞讛 诇讜拽讞 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诇拽讞 讞爪专 讜讘讛 讝讬讝讬谉 讜讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讞讝拽转讛

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary for Rav Pappa to state this halakha? We already learn this with regard to an heir (41a): In the case of land that comes as an inheritance, one is not required to make a claim as to how the land came into his benefactor鈥檚 possession when one鈥檚 ownership of the land is challenged. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state this halakha with regard to a buyer. The Gemara asks: With regard to a buyer as well, we learn this in a mishna (60a): If one bought a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies [ugzuztraot] extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, i.e., the owner has the acquired privilege of their use, and the court does not demand their removal.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛转诐 讙讘讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讗讬诪讜专 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讜诇 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna of the mishna to state this halakha in both cases, as, if he had taught us this only there, in that mishna, one might have said that it applies specifically with regard to a protrusion or a balcony that extends into the public domain, as one can say that perhaps it is a case where the seller had drawn back into his own land before adding the projections and balconies, and they in fact do not extend into the public thoroughfare. Alternatively, perhaps the public waived their right to him and allowed him to place them over the common area, as otherwise they would have protested. But here, where he causes damage to private individuals, one might have thought that the buyer does not have a privilege of use, and therefore the mishna teaches us otherwise.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 驻讬讜住讬讛 驻讬讬住讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇 讙讘讬讛 讗讘诇 专讘讬诐 诪讗谉 驻讬讬住 讜诪讗谉 砖讘讬拽 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if he had taught this only in the mishna here, one might say that since the party potentially suffering damage is an individual, the owner of the dovecote appeased his neighbor by paying him to permit him to construct it. Alternatively, the neighbor might have waived his right to him. But in a case where damage is caused to the public, one might argue: Whom did he appease, and who yielded to him? Consequently, one might say that the purchaser does not retain the privilege of use. Therefore, it is necessary for the tanna to state the halakha in this case as well.

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讞讝拽转讜 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗讬谉 讞讝拽讛 诇谞讝拽讬谉 专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专 讘拽讜讟专讗 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if one bought the dovecote with the land, he has the acquired privilege of use. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh says: There is no acquired privilege of use for cases of damage? Why should he retain his acquired privilege of use when his doves cause damage? Rav Mari said: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement is referring specifically to smoke, which causes serious damage, and that is why it overrides an acquired privilege. Rav Zevid said: It is referring to a bathroom, whose odor is particularly strong.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讬驻讜诇 讛谞诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛砖讜讘讱 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜爪讗讜 谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讜讘讻讜转 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜

MISHNA: With regard to a dove chick [nippul] that was found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. If it was found beyond fifty cubits from a dovecote, it belongs to its finder. In a case where it was found between two dovecotes, if it was close to this one, it belongs to the owner of this dovecote; if it was close to that one, it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. If it was half and half, i.e., equidistant from the two dovecotes, the two owners divide the value of the chick.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 专讜讘 讜拽专讜讘 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讜讘讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜拽讜专讘讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 专讜讘讗 注讚讬祝

GEMARA: Rabbi 岣nina says: When resolving an uncertainty with regard to the halakhic status of an item, e.g., a found item, if the status of the majority of like items indicates that it has one status but the item in question is proximate to a source that indicates otherwise, one follows the majority. And even though the halakha of majority applies by Torah law and the halakha of proximity also applies by Torah law, even so the majority is preferable.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讛讬讛 讛注讬专 讛拽专讘讛 讗诇 讛讞诇诇 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讚谞驻讬砖讗 诪讬谞讛

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from the Torah鈥檚 statement with regard to a murder victim where the identity of the murderer is unknown. In a case of this kind, the court measures the distances between the corpse and the nearby towns, in order to determine which town is closest and must consequently perform the rite of the heifer whose neck is broken. The verse states: 鈥淎nd it shall be, that the city that is nearest to the slain man, the Elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd鈥nd shall break the heifer鈥檚 neck鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:3鈥4). And this town is chosen even though there might be another town that is larger in population than it. According to Rabbi 岣nina, in a case of this kind one should follow the majority.

讘讚诇讬讻讗 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗 讘讬讜砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛讛专讬诐

The Gemara answers: This verse is referring to a situation where there is no other town that is larger than that one. The Gemara asks: And still, if one follows the majority, why should the court follow the closest city? Let us follow the majority of the world, as most people are found elsewhere. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where the city sits in isolation between mountains, and therefore it is unlikely that the murderer arrived from elsewhere.

转谞谉 谞讬驻讜诇 讛谞诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛砖讜讘讱 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚谞驻讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讚诇讬讻讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of majority as opposed to proximity. We learned in the mishna: With regard to a dove chick that was found within fifty cubits of a dovecote, it belongs to the owner of the dovecote. And as the mishna does not make a distinction between different cases, it indicates that this is the halakha even though there is another dovecote that is larger than the proximate one in terms of number of birds. This shows that closeness, not majority, is the determining factor. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where there is no other dovecote in the area.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 诪讜爪讗讜 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讜讚讗讬 诪讛讛讜讗 谞驻诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪讚讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讻诇 讛诪讚讚讛 讗讬谉 诪讚讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讞诪砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: If it was found beyond fifty cubits from a dovecote, it belongs to its finder. And if there is no other dovecote in the area, it certainly fell from that dovecote. How, then, can it be given to the finder? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a chick that hops from place to place but does not yet fly. As Rav Ukva bar 岣ma says: With regard to any creature that hops, it does not hop more than fifty cubits. Consequently, any bird found within fifty cubits of a dovecote is assumed to have come from there. If it is farther away than that, it likely came from elsewhere or was dropped by travelers.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讘转讜讱 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜专讙诇讜 讗讞转 讞讜抓 诪讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 诪讛讜 讜注诇 讚讗 讗驻拽讜讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讘讬 诪讚专砖讗

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one leg of the chick was within fifty cubits of the dovecote, and one leg was beyond fifty cubits, what is the halakha? The Gemara comments: And it was for his question about this far-fetched scenario that they removed Rabbi Yirmeya from the study hall, as he was apparently wasting the Sages鈥 time.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讜讘讻讜转 拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 讜拽专讜讘 诇讝讛 砖诇讜 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞驻讬砖 诪讞讘专讬讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖砖谞讬讛谉 砖讜讬谉 讜诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 讚注诇诪讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the mishna: In a case where it was found between two dovecotes, if it was close to this one, it belongs to the owner of this dovecote; if it was close to that one, it belongs to the owner of that dovecote. The Gemara comments: And this is the halakha even though one of them is greater in number of birds than the other one. Apparently, one rules based on proximity, not majority. The Gemara explains: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a situation where the two dovecotes are equal in size. The Gemara asks: But even so, why should one follow the closer dovecote? Let us follow the majority of the world, as there are many other dovecotes besides these, and the number of doves they contain is greater. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here?

Scroll To Top