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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 25, 2017 | 讻状讝 讘讟讘转 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 3

A version of the previous sugya is brought – in the exact opposite direction – the gemara leans toward the explanation that mechitza means to split the property and it is a property that is small (less than 4 amot by 4 amot for each side). 聽As a result, various questions are brought on that reading, much like in the previous sugya where the gemara sided with the explanation that mechitza is a wall and various questions were brought on that interpretation. 聽The size of the bricks and stones聽mentioned聽in the mishna is discussed. 聽Then a halacha of Rav Chisda is brought: one cannot knock down a shul unless one already has a new shul in its place. 聽This leads in to a story about Herod.

讚讗讬爪讟谞注 诪讬谞讱

so that I can hide from you at that time and avoid coming under your gaze.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 诪讞讬爪讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讛讬 诪讞爪转 讛注讚讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚专爪讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘注诇 讻讜专讞谉 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

搂 The Gemara has so far presented one version of the discussion of the mishna. A different version relates the discussion as follows: The Sages initially assumed: What is the meaning of the term me岣tza mentioned in the mishna? A division, not a partition, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the division of [me岣tzat] the congregation was鈥 (Numbers 31:43). According to this interpretation, the mishna means to say: Since they wished to divide the jointly owned courtyard, they build a proper wall in the center even against the will of one of the partners. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is called damage.

讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讜讚讗 讚转谞谉 诪讞讬爪转 讛讻专诐 砖谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞转讬讗砖 讛讬诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

The Gemara objects to this conclusion: But why not say: What is the meaning of the term me岣tza mentioned in the mishna? It means a partition. This usage would be as we learned in a baraita: Consider the case where a partition of [me岣tzat] a vineyard which separates the vineyard from a field of grain was breached, resulting, if the situation is not rectified, in the grain and grapes becoming items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. The owner of the field of grain may say to the owner of the vineyard: Build a partition between the vineyard and the field of grain. If the owner of the vineyard did so, and the partition was breached again, the owner of the field of grain may say to him again: Build a partition. If the owner of the vineyard neglected to make the necessary repairs and did not properly build a partition between the fields, the grain and grapes are rendered forbidden due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, and he is liable for the monetary loss.

讜讟注诪讗 讚专爪讜 讛讗 诇讗 专爪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

The Gemara concludes stating the objection: And according to the understanding that the term me岣tza means a partition, one can infer: The reason that they build a wall is that they both wished to make a partition in their jointly owned courtyard. But if they did not both wish to do so, the court does not obligate the reluctant partner to build such a wall, although his neighbor objects to the fact that the partner can see what he is doing in his courtyard. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is not called damage.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讜谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 诪讞讬爪讛 砖专爪讜 诇讞爪讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 转讗 谞注讘讬讚 驻诇讜讙转讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, the words: They build the wall, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: They build it, since the wall and the partition are one and the same. The Gemara retorts: Rather, what is the meaning of the term me岣tza? A division. If it is so that the term me岣tza means a division, the words: Who wished to make a division, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: Who wished to divide. The Gemara answers: The phrasing of the mishna is as people commonly say: Come, let us make a division. Consequently, the mishna can also be understood as referring to two people who wished to divide a jointly owned area.

讜讗讬 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专爪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 专爪讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖谞转谞讜 讻砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛讜讗 讚专爪讜

The Gemara asks, according to the understanding that me岣tza means division: But if damage caused by sight is called damage, why does the tanna specifically teach that if they wish, they build a wall? Even if they did not both wish to do so, it should also be possible to compel the reluctant party to build a wall between them. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Our mishna is referring to a courtyard that is not subject to the halakha of division. Joint owners of a courtyard cannot be compelled to divide the courtyard unless each party will receive at least four square cubits of the courtyard. And therefore, this ruling of the mishna applies only in the case where they both wished to divide the courtyard.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻讬 专爪讜 驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讻讗 讻讜转诇

The Gemara asks: According to this understanding, what is the tanna teaching us? Is he teaching us that when a courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division, if they nevertheless wished to do so, they divide it? But we already learned this in the latter clause of a different mishna (11a): When do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? When the joint owners do not both wish to divide it. But when both of them wish to divide it, they divide it even if it is smaller than this, i.e., smaller than four square cubits for each party. The Gemara answers: If we had learned this halakha only from there, I would say that they divide the courtyard even if it is smaller than this by constructing a mere partition of pegs, which does not prevent invasion of privacy. Therefore, the tanna teaches us here in this mishna that if they wish to divide the courtyard they can be compelled to build a proper wall.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讛讗 讜诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛讱 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna teach this mishna and not teach that other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach the other mishna to introduce the last clause of that mishna, which states: And jointly owned sacred writings that are contained in a single scroll should not be divided even if both owners wish to do so.

(诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讻讬 专爪讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 讻讜壮

The Gemara brings a different version of the previous discussion: And if they wished to divide the courtyard, what of it? What forces them to build the wall? If one of the parties does not wish to build a wall, let him retract. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the mishna is not discussing a case where they merely reached a verbal agreement to divide the courtyard, but rather with a case where each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither side can retract.

讗讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛讜讗 讚专爪讜 诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬砖 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 专爪讜 讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬砖 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 专爪讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专爪讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Rather than teaching us a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division, but nevertheless they wished to divide it, let the mishna teach us a case where the courtyard is subject to the halakha of division, even if they did not both wish to divide it. The Gemara answers: Had it taught us only a case where the courtyard is subject to the halakha of division that applies even if they did not both wish to divide it, I would say that in a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division then even if they both wished to divide it, if one of the parties does not wish to build a proper wall he cannot be compelled to do so. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is compelled to participate.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讻讜转诇 诇讗 讗诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But how can you say this? Doesn鈥檛 the latter clause of the mishna (11a) teach: When do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? When the joint owners do not both wish to divide it. But when both of them wish to divide it, they divide it even if it is smaller than this. What, is this clause of the mishna not referring to the fact that either one can force the other to build a proper wall? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a mere partition of pegs and not to an actual wall.

诇讬转谞讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛讗讬 住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讘讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜)

The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna teach this mishna and not teach that other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the other mishna for the last clause of that mishna, which states: And jointly owned sacred writings that are contained in a single scroll should not be divided even if both owners wish to do so. This concludes the alternative version of the discussion.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讬 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻讬 专爪讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讛讚专讜 讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚谉

The Gemara continues its analysis of the mishna: To what case did you interpret the mishna to be referring? To a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division. But if there is no halakha of division, then if they wished to divide the courtyard, what of it; how can either one force the other to build a wall? If the parties no longer want to build a wall, let them retract. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is referring to a case where each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither party can retract.

讜讻讬 拽谞讜 诪讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 拽谞讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讘砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚谉 讘专讜讞讜转 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛诇讱 讝讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讜讝讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讝讬拽

The Gemara asks: But even if each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, what of it? It is merely a verbal acquisition, meaning there was no actual transfer of property, but only a verbal agreement to act in a certain manner in the future and not a true act of acquisition. The Gemara answers: They performed an act of acquisition with the other with regard to directions, i.e., not only did they verbally agree to divide the courtyard, they also determined which of them would get which part of the courtyard. Consequently, the acquisition related to actual property, a particular plot of land. Rav Ashi said: For example, this one walked through his designated portion and performed an act demonstrating ownership there, and that one walked through his designated portion and performed an act demonstrating ownership there.

诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讘谞讜转 讻讜壮 讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讗 讙讝讬转 讗讘谞讬 讚诪砖驻讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗诇讛 讗讘谞讬诐 讬拽专讜转 讻诪讚讜转 讙讝讬转 (讜讙讜壮) 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 诇讘讬谞讬谉 诇讬讘谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches: In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. The Gemara identifies the various building materials: Gevil refers to stones that are not planed. Gazit means stones that are planed, as it is written: 鈥淎ll these were of costly stones, according to the measures of chiseled stones [gazit], sawed with saws, within and without鈥 (I聽Kings 7:9). This teaches that chiseled stones are those that have been planed and smoothened. Kefisin refers to small bricks. Leveinim means large bricks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讙讝讬转 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讛讜讗

Rabba, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: From where do you know that gevil refers to stones that are not planed, and this extra handbreadth that a wall of gevil has compared to what a wall of gazit has is for the protruding edges? That is, a wall of gevil is six handbreadths thick because the stones have not been planed and smoothened, and therefore protrude somewhat outward. Perhaps gevil refers to planed stones that are half the thickness of gazit, namely, just two and a half handbreadths, as compared to gazit, which is five handbreadths thick; and this extra handbreadth in a wall of gevil is for the space between the two rows [urbei]. That is, a wall of gevil is actually two walls of planed stones that are each two and a half handbreadths thick; and the two walls are separated by one handbreadth, which is later filled in with mortar for added strength.

讻讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 诇讘讬谞讬谉 诇讬讘谞讬 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬

A proof for this explanation can be brought from what we say, i.e., that kefisin are small bricks, whereas leveinim are large bricks, twice the thickness of small bricks. And this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has compared to what a wall of levinim has is for the space between the two rows of small bricks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 诪谞诇谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讙讜讬诇 谞诪讬 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we derive that kefisin are small bricks? Rather, the Sages learned this as a tradition. And so too, they learned as a tradition that gevil refers to non-planed stones.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗讬 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗 讻讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讬谉 讙讝讬转 讗讘谞讬 讚诪砖驻讬讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗

The Gemara presents a different version of the discussion. There are those who say that Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From where do you know that kefisin are small bricks, one-half the width of large bricks, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has compared to what a wall of leveinim has covers the space between the two rows of kefisin? Perhaps you should say what are kefisin? Stones that are not planed, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has in comparison to what a wall of leveinim has is for the protruding edges. And proof for this explanation can be brought from what we say, i.e., that gevil refers to stones that are not planed, whereas gazit means planed stones, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of gevil has compared to what a wall of gazit has is for the protruding edges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we derive that gevil are stones that are not planed? Rather, the Sages learned this as a tradition. Here too, they learned as a tradition that kefisin are small bricks.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讟驻讞 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讟讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘专讬讻住讗 讘注讬 讟驻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讬讻住讗 讗讘诇 讘讟讬谞讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

Abaye said: Learn from it that the space left between the two rows of a wall is always a handbreadth. The Gemara comments: This matter applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in with mortar. But when they are filled in with gravel [berikhsa], more space is required. And there are those who say that this matter applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in with gravel. But when mortar is used to fill in the space, not as much space is required, and less than a handbreadth suffices.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讙讝讬转 讚讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讙讜讘讛 讗讬 讛讜讬 驻讜转讬讗 讞诪砖讗 拽讗讬 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讚讛讜讗讬 讙讘讜讛 转诇转讬谉 讗诪讛转讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 驻讜转讬讗 讗诇讗 砖讬转 驻讜砖讻讬 讜拽诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 拽讗讬

搂 The Gemara asks: Is this to say that in the case of a wall of chiseled stone, if for every four cubits of height there are five handbreadths of thickness the wall will stand, and if not it will not stand, as this is the required ratio between a wall鈥檚 height and its thickness? But wasn鈥檛 there the one-cubit-thick wall separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple [amah teraksin] separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary, which was thirty cubits high and its thickness was only six handbreadths and nevertheless stood? The Gemara answers: Since there was an extra handbreadth of thickness, it was able to stand even to such a great height.

讜讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讻讬 拽讗讬 讘转诇转讬谉 拽讗讬 讟驻讬 诇讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that in the Second Temple they did not fashion an amah teraksin to separate between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary, as they had done in the First Temple? The Gemara answers: When a partition stands even though it is only six handbreadths thick, it is able to remain standing up to thirty cubits in height. But it will not be able to stand if it is more than that height. The Second Temple was taller than the First Temple, and therefore the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary also had to be higher.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讛讜讛 讙讘讜讛 讟驻讬 讚讻转讬讘 讙讚讜诇 讬讛讬讛 讻讘讜讚 讛讘讬转 讛讝讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讘谞讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专

The Gemara comments: And from where do we derive that the Second Temple was taller than the First Temple? As it is written: 鈥淭he glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former鈥 (Haggai 2:9). Rav and Shmuel disagree about the meaning of this verse, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar who disagreed as to its meaning. One of them said that it means that the Second Temple will be greater in the size of its structure, i.e., taller. And one of them said

讘砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬转讗 诇讛讗 讜讗讬转讗 诇讛讗

that it will be greater in years, meaning that the Second Temple will stand for a longer period of time than the First Temple. And the Gemara comments that this is true and that is true, meaning that the Second Temple was taller than the First Temple and also stood for a longer period of time.

讜谞讬注讘讚讜 转诇转讬谉 讗诪讬谉 讘讘谞讬谉 讜讗讬讚讱 谞讬注讘讬讚 驻专讜讻转 讻讬 拽讗讬 转诇转讬谉 讗诪讛转讗 谞诪讬 讗讙讘 转拽专讛 讜诪注讝讬讘讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘诇讗 转拽专讛 讜诪注讝讬讘讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: If so, if the Second Temple building was taller, then to separate between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary in the Second Temple they should have made a wall thirty cubits high and then made a curtain for the rest of the height, the seventy-cubit difference in height between the First and Second Temples. The Gemara answers: This would have been impossible, as even when a thirty-cubit wall that is six handbreadths thick stands, it is due to the ceiling and plaster which attaches it to the ceiling that it stands. But without a ceiling and plaster holding it in place, it does not stand.

讜诇讬注讘讬讚 诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 讘讘谞讬谉 讜诇讬注讘讬讚 讗讬讚讱 驻专讜讻转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘谞讬谉 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘驻专讜讻转 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘谞讬谉 诪诪拽讚砖 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘驻专讜讻转 诪诪砖讻谉

The Gemara continues: But they should have made a wall as high as can possibly stand by itself, and then should have made a curtain for the rest of the height. Abaye said: The Sages learned as a tradition that the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary should be built either entirely as a wall or entirely as a curtain. It should be built either entirely as a wall, as is learned from the First Temple, or it should be built entirely as a curtain, as is learned from the Tabernacle. At no time, however, was there a partition that combined a wall and a curtain.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谉 讜住讬讚谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谉 讘诇讗 住讬讚谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讛谉 讜住讬讚谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讘诇讗 住讬讚谉 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谉 讜住讬讚谉 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛谉 讘诇讗 住讬讚谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讟驻讞 诇讗 转谞讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the measurements given in the mishna apply to them, the thickness of the materials themselves, and the plaster with which the materials were coated, or perhaps just to them without their plaster? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is reasonable to say the measurements refer to them and their plaster, as, if it should enter your mind to say they refer to them without their plaster, then the tanna should have taught the measurements of the plaster as well. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from here that the measurements refer to them and their plaster? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, actually I could say to you that they apply to them without their plaster, and since the plaster does not have the thickness of one handbreadth the tanna did not teach such a small measurement.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘诇讘讬谞讬谉 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讛转诐 讞讝讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach with regard to bricks that this one provides one and a half handbreadths, and that one provides one and a half handbreadths? Evidently, the tanna lists even an amount less than one handbreadth. The Gemara answers: There mention is made of half-handbreadths because they are fit to be combined into a full handbreadth.

转讗 砖诪注 讛拽讜专讛 砖讗诪专讜 专讞讘讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜讛讗专讬讞 讞爪讬 诇讘讬谞讛 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to the question, from a mishna (Eiruvin 13b) in which it is taught: The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, the width of which is three handbreadths. That mishna is referring to a brick without the plaster.

讛转诐 讘专讘专讘转讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讜讟专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: There, the mishna in Eiruvin is referring to large bricks that measure three full handbreadths, whereas here the mishna is referring to bricks that measure slightly less than three handbreadths, and the measurement of three handbreadths includes the plaster with which they are coated. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna there is also precise, as it teaches about a brick of three handbreadths, from which one can conclude by inference that there exists also a smaller-sized brick. The Gemara affirms: Learn from here that the mishna there is referring to large bricks.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讬住转讜专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 注讚 讚讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 爪诇讜讬讬

Rav 岣sda says: A person may not demolish a synagogue until he first builds another synagogue to take its place. There are those who say that the reason for this halakha is due to potential negligence, lest he fail to build a new structure after the old one has been razed. And there are those who say that the reason for this halakha is due to the disruption of prayer, for in the meantime there will be nowhere to pray.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 住转专讬 讜讘谞讜 讘讬 拽讬讬讟讗 讘住讬转讜讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讘讬 住讬转讜讜讗 讘拽讬讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between them in a situation where there is another synagogue. Even though the community has an alternative place to pray there is still a concern that the new synagogue will never get built. It is related that Mareimar and Mar Zutra demolished and built a summer synagogue in the winter, and, in like manner, they built a winter synagogue in the summer, so that the community would never be left without a synagogue.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙讘讜 讝讜讝讬 讜诪讞转讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 诇讛讜 驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 讜讬讛讘讬 诇讛讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is the halakha if money for the construction of a new synagogue has already been collected and it rests before us for that purpose? Is it then permitted to demolish the old synagogue before building the new one? Rav Ashi said to him: Even if the money has been collected there is still concern that perhaps an opportunity for redeeming captives will present itself, and they will hand over the money for that urgent requirement, and the community will be left without a synagogue.

砖专讬讙讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讜讛讚专讬 讛讜讚专讬 讜诪讞转讬 讻砖讜专讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪转专诪讬 诇讛讜 驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 诪讝讘谞讬 讜讬讛讘讬 诇讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬专转讬讛 讚讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 诪讝讘谞讬

Ravina continues: What is the halakha if the bricks to be used for the construction of the new synagogue are piled up, the boards are prepared, and the beams are ready? Is it permitted to demolish the old synagogue before building the new one? Rav Ashi said to him: Even so, sometimes an opportunity for redeeming captives will present itself, and they will sell the building materials and hand over the proceeds for this purpose. Ravina raises an objection: If so, that is, if you are concerned that they will sell the materials to redeem captives, then even in a case where they already built the synagogue there should be a concern that they might come to sell the structure for that purpose, and therefore one should never be permitted to destroy an old synagogue. Rav Ashi said to him: People do not sell their residences, and certainly not their synagogues.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘讛 转讬讜讛讗 讗讘诇 讞讝讬 讘讛 转讬讜讛讗 住转专讬 讜讘谞讬 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讗 讘讛 转讬讜讛讗 讘讻谞讬砖转讗 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 住转专讬讛 讜注讬讬诇 诇驻讜专讬讬讛 诇讛转诐 讜诇讗 讗驻拽讬讛 注讚 讚诪转拽讬谉 诇讬讛 砖驻讬讻讬

The Gemara comments: And we said that an old synagogue must not be razed before its replacement is built only in a case where cracks are not seen in the old synagogue. But if cracks are seen they may first demolish the old synagogue and then build the new one. This is like the incident involving Rav Ashi, who saw cracks in the synagogue in his town of Mata Me岣sya and immediately demolished it. He then brought his bed in there, to the building site, so that there should be no delays in the construction, as he himself required shelter from the rain, and he did not remove his bed from there until they finished building the synagogue and even affixed drainpipes to the structure.

讜讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 讛讬讻讬 讗住讘讬讛 诇讬讛 注爪讛 诇讛讜专讚讜住 诇诪讬住转专讬讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讬住转讜专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 注讚 讚讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讗 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转讬讜讛讗 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪诇讻讜转讗 砖讗谞讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专讗 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讗诪专 诪诇讻讜转讗 注拽专谞讗 讟讜专讬 注拽专 讟讜专讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: How could Bava ben Buta have advised Herod to raze the Temple and build another in its place, as will be described later? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say that a person must not demolish a synagogue unless he first builds another synagogue to take its place? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he saw cracks in the old Temple structure. And if you wish, say that actions taken by the government are different, as the government does not go back on its decisions. Therefore, there is no need to be concerned about negligence, as there is in the case of ordinary people. As Shmuel says: If the government says it will uproot mountains, it will uproot mountains and not retract its word.

讛讜专讚讜住 注讘讚讗 讚讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讛讜讛 谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘讗讜转讛 转讬谞讜拽转 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 砖诪注 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘转 拽诇讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 注讘讚讗 讚诪专讬讚 讛砖转讗 诪爪诇讞 拽诐 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诪专讜转讬讛 讜砖讬讬专讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 讻讬 讞讝转 讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬谞住讘讛 住诇讬拽讗 诇讗讬讙专讗 讜专诪讗 拽诇讗 讗诪专讛 讻诇 诪讗谉 讚讗转讬 讜讗诪专 诪讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 拽讗转讬谞讗 注讘讚讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转讬讬专讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 讜讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 谞驻诇讛 诪讗讬讙专讗 诇讗专注讗

搂 The Gemara elaborates on the episode involving Bava ben Buta. Herod was a slave in the house of the Hasmoneans. He set his eyes upon a certain young girl from the house of the Hasmoneans. One day that man, Herod, heard a Divine Voice that said: Any slave who rebels now will succeed. He rose up and killed all his masters, but spared that girl. When that girl saw that he wanted to marry her, she went up to the roof and raised her voice, and said: Whoever comes and says: I come from the house of the Hasmoneans, is a slave, since only that girl, i.e., I, remained from them. And that girl fell from the roof to the ground and died.

讟诪谞讛 砖讘注 砖谞讬谉 讘讚讜讘砖讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讟诪谞讛 诇讬转讜讘讬讛 诇讬爪专讬讛 讜讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讟诪谞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讗诪专讜 讘转 诪诇讱 谞住讘

It is related that Herod preserved the girl鈥檚 body in honey for seven years to prevent it from decaying. There are those who say that he engaged in necrophilia with her corpse and there are those who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her corpse. According to those who say he engaged in necrophilia with her corpse, the reason that he preserved her body was to gratify his carnal desires. And according to those who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her corpse, the reason that he preserved her body was so that people would say he married a king鈥檚 daughter.

讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚专讬砖 诪拽专讘 讗讞讬讱 转砖讬诐 注诇讬讱 诪诇讱 专讘谞谉 拽诐 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘拽讬讛 诇讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 诇诪砖拽诇 注爪讛 诪谞讬讛

Herod said to himself: Who expounds the verse: 鈥淥ne from among your brothers you shall set as king over you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:15) as meaning that he who is appointed as king must come from a Jewish family and cannot be an emancipated slave or a convert? It is the Sages who expound the verse in this manner, insisting that a king must have Jewish roots. He then rose up and killed all the Sages, but spared Bava ben Buta in order to take counsel with him.

  • 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 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 3

讚讗讬爪讟谞注 诪讬谞讱

so that I can hide from you at that time and avoid coming under your gaze.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛 住讘专讜讛 诪讗讬 诪讞讬爪讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讛讬 诪讞爪转 讛注讚讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚专爪讜 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘注诇 讻讜专讞谉 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

搂 The Gemara has so far presented one version of the discussion of the mishna. A different version relates the discussion as follows: The Sages initially assumed: What is the meaning of the term me岣tza mentioned in the mishna? A division, not a partition, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the division of [me岣tzat] the congregation was鈥 (Numbers 31:43). According to this interpretation, the mishna means to say: Since they wished to divide the jointly owned courtyard, they build a proper wall in the center even against the will of one of the partners. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is called damage.

讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪讞讬爪讛 讙讜讚讗 讚转谞谉 诪讞讬爪转 讛讻专诐 砖谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞驻专爪讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讙讚讜专 谞转讬讗砖 讛讬诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讙讚专讛 讛专讬 讝讛 拽讬讚砖 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讛

The Gemara objects to this conclusion: But why not say: What is the meaning of the term me岣tza mentioned in the mishna? It means a partition. This usage would be as we learned in a baraita: Consider the case where a partition of [me岣tzat] a vineyard which separates the vineyard from a field of grain was breached, resulting, if the situation is not rectified, in the grain and grapes becoming items from which deriving benefit is prohibited. The owner of the field of grain may say to the owner of the vineyard: Build a partition between the vineyard and the field of grain. If the owner of the vineyard did so, and the partition was breached again, the owner of the field of grain may say to him again: Build a partition. If the owner of the vineyard neglected to make the necessary repairs and did not properly build a partition between the fields, the grain and grapes are rendered forbidden due to the prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, and he is liable for the monetary loss.

讜讟注诪讗 讚专爪讜 讛讗 诇讗 专爪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诇诪讗 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽

The Gemara concludes stating the objection: And according to the understanding that the term me岣tza means a partition, one can infer: The reason that they build a wall is that they both wished to make a partition in their jointly owned courtyard. But if they did not both wish to do so, the court does not obligate the reluctant partner to build such a wall, although his neighbor objects to the fact that the partner can see what he is doing in his courtyard. Apparently, it may be concluded that damage caused by sight is not called damage.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讜谞讬谉 讗转 讛讻讜转诇 讘讜谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 诪讞讬爪讛 砖专爪讜 诇讞爪讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 转讗 谞注讘讬讚 驻诇讜讙转讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, the words: They build the wall, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: They build it, since the wall and the partition are one and the same. The Gemara retorts: Rather, what is the meaning of the term me岣tza? A division. If it is so that the term me岣tza means a division, the words: Who wished to make a division, are imprecise, as the tanna should have said: Who wished to divide. The Gemara answers: The phrasing of the mishna is as people commonly say: Come, let us make a division. Consequently, the mishna can also be understood as referring to two people who wished to divide a jointly owned area.

讜讗讬 讛讬讝拽 专讗讬讛 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 专爪讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 专爪讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖谞转谞讜 讻砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛讜讗 讚专爪讜

The Gemara asks, according to the understanding that me岣tza means division: But if damage caused by sight is called damage, why does the tanna specifically teach that if they wish, they build a wall? Even if they did not both wish to do so, it should also be possible to compel the reluctant party to build a wall between them. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Our mishna is referring to a courtyard that is not subject to the halakha of division. Joint owners of a courtyard cannot be compelled to divide the courtyard unless each party will receive at least four square cubits of the courtyard. And therefore, this ruling of the mishna applies only in the case where they both wished to divide the courtyard.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻讬 专爪讜 驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讘诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛讻讗 讻讜转诇

The Gemara asks: According to this understanding, what is the tanna teaching us? Is he teaching us that when a courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division, if they nevertheless wished to do so, they divide it? But we already learned this in the latter clause of a different mishna (11a): When do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? When the joint owners do not both wish to divide it. But when both of them wish to divide it, they divide it even if it is smaller than this, i.e., smaller than four square cubits for each party. The Gemara answers: If we had learned this halakha only from there, I would say that they divide the courtyard even if it is smaller than this by constructing a mere partition of pegs, which does not prevent invasion of privacy. Therefore, the tanna teaches us here in this mishna that if they wish to divide the courtyard they can be compelled to build a proper wall.

讜诇讬转谞讬 讛讗 讜诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛讱 住讬驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna teach this mishna and not teach that other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to teach the other mishna to introduce the last clause of that mishna, which states: And jointly owned sacred writings that are contained in a single scroll should not be divided even if both owners wish to do so.

(诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讻讬 专爪讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚讜 讻讜壮

The Gemara brings a different version of the previous discussion: And if they wished to divide the courtyard, what of it? What forces them to build the wall? If one of the parties does not wish to build a wall, let him retract. Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the mishna is not discussing a case where they merely reached a verbal agreement to divide the courtyard, but rather with a case where each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither side can retract.

讗讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讛讜讗 讚专爪讜 诇讬砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬砖 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 专爪讜 讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讘讬砖 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 专爪讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讗驻讬诇讜 专爪讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Rather than teaching us a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division, but nevertheless they wished to divide it, let the mishna teach us a case where the courtyard is subject to the halakha of division, even if they did not both wish to divide it. The Gemara answers: Had it taught us only a case where the courtyard is subject to the halakha of division that applies even if they did not both wish to divide it, I would say that in a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division then even if they both wished to divide it, if one of the parties does not wish to build a proper wall he cannot be compelled to do so. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that he is compelled to participate.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讻讜转诇 诇讗 讗诪住讬驻住 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara asks: But how can you say this? Doesn鈥檛 the latter clause of the mishna (11a) teach: When do they not divide the courtyard because it is not large enough to compel division? When the joint owners do not both wish to divide it. But when both of them wish to divide it, they divide it even if it is smaller than this. What, is this clause of the mishna not referring to the fact that either one can force the other to build a proper wall? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to a mere partition of pegs and not to an actual wall.

诇讬转谞讬 讛讗讬 讜诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讛讗讬 住讬驻讗 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讘讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜)

The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna teach this mishna and not teach that other mishna, as this mishna teaches more details than the later one. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the other mishna for the last clause of that mishna, which states: And jointly owned sacred writings that are contained in a single scroll should not be divided even if both owners wish to do so. This concludes the alternative version of the discussion.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讗讬 讘砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 讞诇讜拽讛 讻讬 专爪讜 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讛讚专讜 讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚谉

The Gemara continues its analysis of the mishna: To what case did you interpret the mishna to be referring? To a case where the courtyard is not subject to the halakha of division. But if there is no halakha of division, then if they wished to divide the courtyard, what of it; how can either one force the other to build a wall? If the parties no longer want to build a wall, let them retract. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is referring to a case where each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, confirming their respective commitments. Therefore, neither party can retract.

讜讻讬 拽谞讜 诪讬讚谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 拽谞讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讘砖拽谞讜 诪讬讚谉 讘专讜讞讜转 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讛诇讱 讝讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讝讬拽 讜讝讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛讞讝讬拽

The Gemara asks: But even if each party performed an act of acquisition with the other, what of it? It is merely a verbal acquisition, meaning there was no actual transfer of property, but only a verbal agreement to act in a certain manner in the future and not a true act of acquisition. The Gemara answers: They performed an act of acquisition with the other with regard to directions, i.e., not only did they verbally agree to divide the courtyard, they also determined which of them would get which part of the courtyard. Consequently, the acquisition related to actual property, a particular plot of land. Rav Ashi said: For example, this one walked through his designated portion and performed an act demonstrating ownership there, and that one walked through his designated portion and performed an act demonstrating ownership there.

诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讘谞讜转 讻讜壮 讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讗 讙讝讬转 讗讘谞讬 讚诪砖驻讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗诇讛 讗讘谞讬诐 讬拽专讜转 讻诪讚讜转 讙讝讬转 (讜讙讜壮) 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 诇讘讬谞讬谉 诇讬讘谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches: In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. The Gemara identifies the various building materials: Gevil refers to stones that are not planed. Gazit means stones that are planed, as it is written: 鈥淎ll these were of costly stones, according to the measures of chiseled stones [gazit], sawed with saws, within and without鈥 (I聽Kings 7:9). This teaches that chiseled stones are those that have been planed and smoothened. Kefisin refers to small bricks. Leveinim means large bricks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 驻诇讙讗 讚讙讝讬转 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讛讜讗

Rabba, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: From where do you know that gevil refers to stones that are not planed, and this extra handbreadth that a wall of gevil has compared to what a wall of gazit has is for the protruding edges? That is, a wall of gevil is six handbreadths thick because the stones have not been planed and smoothened, and therefore protrude somewhat outward. Perhaps gevil refers to planed stones that are half the thickness of gazit, namely, just two and a half handbreadths, as compared to gazit, which is five handbreadths thick; and this extra handbreadth in a wall of gevil is for the space between the two rows [urbei]. That is, a wall of gevil is actually two walls of planed stones that are each two and a half handbreadths thick; and the two walls are separated by one handbreadth, which is later filled in with mortar for added strength.

讻讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 诇讘讬谞讬谉 诇讬讘谞讬 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬

A proof for this explanation can be brought from what we say, i.e., that kefisin are small bricks, whereas leveinim are large bricks, twice the thickness of small bricks. And this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has compared to what a wall of levinim has is for the space between the two rows of small bricks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 诪谞诇谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讙讜讬诇 谞诪讬 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we derive that kefisin are small bricks? Rather, the Sages learned this as a tradition. And so too, they learned as a tradition that gevil refers to non-planed stones.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗专讞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讗讬 讻驻讬住讬谉 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗 讻讚拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讬谉 讙讝讬转 讗讘谞讬 讚诪砖驻讬讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 诇诪讜专砖讗 讚拽专谞转讗

The Gemara presents a different version of the discussion. There are those who say that Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From where do you know that kefisin are small bricks, one-half the width of large bricks, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has compared to what a wall of leveinim has covers the space between the two rows of kefisin? Perhaps you should say what are kefisin? Stones that are not planed, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of kefisin has in comparison to what a wall of leveinim has is for the protruding edges. And proof for this explanation can be brought from what we say, i.e., that gevil refers to stones that are not planed, whereas gazit means planed stones, and this extra handbreadth of thickness that a wall of gevil has compared to what a wall of gazit has is for the protruding edges.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讙讜讬诇 讗讘谞讬 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讗诇讗 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛

Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, from where do we derive that gevil are stones that are not planed? Rather, the Sages learned this as a tradition. Here too, they learned as a tradition that kefisin are small bricks.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讘讬谞讬 讗讜专讘讬 讟驻讞 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讟讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讘专讬讻住讗 讘注讬 讟驻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘专讬讻住讗 讗讘诇 讘讟讬谞讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

Abaye said: Learn from it that the space left between the two rows of a wall is always a handbreadth. The Gemara comments: This matter applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in with mortar. But when they are filled in with gravel [berikhsa], more space is required. And there are those who say that this matter applies only when the two rows of the wall are filled in with gravel. But when mortar is used to fill in the space, not as much space is required, and less than a handbreadth suffices.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讘讙讝讬转 讚讻诇 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讙讜讘讛 讗讬 讛讜讬 驻讜转讬讗 讞诪砖讗 拽讗讬 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽讗讬 讜讛讗 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讚讛讜讗讬 讙讘讜讛 转诇转讬谉 讗诪讛转讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 驻讜转讬讗 讗诇讗 砖讬转 驻讜砖讻讬 讜拽诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讟驻讞 讬转讬专讗 拽讗讬

搂 The Gemara asks: Is this to say that in the case of a wall of chiseled stone, if for every four cubits of height there are five handbreadths of thickness the wall will stand, and if not it will not stand, as this is the required ratio between a wall鈥檚 height and its thickness? But wasn鈥檛 there the one-cubit-thick wall separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary of the Temple [amah teraksin] separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary, which was thirty cubits high and its thickness was only six handbreadths and nevertheless stood? The Gemara answers: Since there was an extra handbreadth of thickness, it was able to stand even to such a great height.

讜讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 讗诪讛 讟专拽住讬谉 讻讬 拽讗讬 讘转诇转讬谉 拽讗讬 讟驻讬 诇讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that in the Second Temple they did not fashion an amah teraksin to separate between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary, as they had done in the First Temple? The Gemara answers: When a partition stands even though it is only six handbreadths thick, it is able to remain standing up to thirty cubits in height. But it will not be able to stand if it is more than that height. The Second Temple was taller than the First Temple, and therefore the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary also had to be higher.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讛讜讛 讙讘讜讛 讟驻讬 讚讻转讬讘 讙讚讜诇 讬讛讬讛 讻讘讜讚 讛讘讬转 讛讝讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讘讘谞讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专

The Gemara comments: And from where do we derive that the Second Temple was taller than the First Temple? As it is written: 鈥淭he glory of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former鈥 (Haggai 2:9). Rav and Shmuel disagree about the meaning of this verse, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar who disagreed as to its meaning. One of them said that it means that the Second Temple will be greater in the size of its structure, i.e., taller. And one of them said

讘砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬转讗 诇讛讗 讜讗讬转讗 诇讛讗

that it will be greater in years, meaning that the Second Temple will stand for a longer period of time than the First Temple. And the Gemara comments that this is true and that is true, meaning that the Second Temple was taller than the First Temple and also stood for a longer period of time.

讜谞讬注讘讚讜 转诇转讬谉 讗诪讬谉 讘讘谞讬谉 讜讗讬讚讱 谞讬注讘讬讚 驻专讜讻转 讻讬 拽讗讬 转诇转讬谉 讗诪讛转讗 谞诪讬 讗讙讘 转拽专讛 讜诪注讝讬讘讛 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讘诇讗 转拽专讛 讜诪注讝讬讘讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: If so, if the Second Temple building was taller, then to separate between the Holy of Holies and the Sanctuary in the Second Temple they should have made a wall thirty cubits high and then made a curtain for the rest of the height, the seventy-cubit difference in height between the First and Second Temples. The Gemara answers: This would have been impossible, as even when a thirty-cubit wall that is six handbreadths thick stands, it is due to the ceiling and plaster which attaches it to the ceiling that it stands. But without a ceiling and plaster holding it in place, it does not stand.

讜诇讬注讘讬讚 诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 讘讘谞讬谉 讜诇讬注讘讬讚 讗讬讚讱 驻专讜讻转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讙诪讬专讬 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘谞讬谉 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘驻专讜讻转 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘讘谞讬谉 诪诪拽讚砖 讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讘驻专讜讻转 诪诪砖讻谉

The Gemara continues: But they should have made a wall as high as can possibly stand by itself, and then should have made a curtain for the rest of the height. Abaye said: The Sages learned as a tradition that the partition separating the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary should be built either entirely as a wall or entirely as a curtain. It should be built either entirely as a wall, as is learned from the First Temple, or it should be built entirely as a curtain, as is learned from the Tabernacle. At no time, however, was there a partition that combined a wall and a curtain.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛谉 讜住讬讚谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛谉 讘诇讗 住讬讚谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讛谉 讜住讬讚谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讘诇讗 住讬讚谉 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 诇砖讬注讜专讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谉 讜住讬讚谉 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讛谉 讘诇讗 住讬讚谉 讜讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讟驻讞 诇讗 转谞讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the measurements given in the mishna apply to them, the thickness of the materials themselves, and the plaster with which the materials were coated, or perhaps just to them without their plaster? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It is reasonable to say the measurements refer to them and their plaster, as, if it should enter your mind to say they refer to them without their plaster, then the tanna should have taught the measurements of the plaster as well. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from here that the measurements refer to them and their plaster? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No, actually I could say to you that they apply to them without their plaster, and since the plaster does not have the thickness of one handbreadth the tanna did not teach such a small measurement.

讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘诇讘讬谞讬谉 讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 讟驻讞 讜诪讞爪讛 讛转诐 讞讝讬 诇讗讬爪讟专讜驻讬

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach with regard to bricks that this one provides one and a half handbreadths, and that one provides one and a half handbreadths? Evidently, the tanna lists even an amount less than one handbreadth. The Gemara answers: There mention is made of half-handbreadths because they are fit to be combined into a full handbreadth.

转讗 砖诪注 讛拽讜专讛 砖讗诪专讜 专讞讘讛 讻讚讬 诇拽讘诇 讗专讬讞 讜讛讗专讬讞 讞爪讬 诇讘讬谞讛 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to the question, from a mishna (Eiruvin 13b) in which it is taught: The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it on Shabbat, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, the width of which is three handbreadths. That mishna is referring to a brick without the plaster.

讛转诐 讘专讘专讘转讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讜讟专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: There, the mishna in Eiruvin is referring to large bricks that measure three full handbreadths, whereas here the mishna is referring to bricks that measure slightly less than three handbreadths, and the measurement of three handbreadths includes the plaster with which they are coated. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna there is also precise, as it teaches about a brick of three handbreadths, from which one can conclude by inference that there exists also a smaller-sized brick. The Gemara affirms: Learn from here that the mishna there is referring to large bricks.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讬住转讜专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 注讚 讚讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 驻砖讬注讜转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 爪诇讜讬讬

Rav 岣sda says: A person may not demolish a synagogue until he first builds another synagogue to take its place. There are those who say that the reason for this halakha is due to potential negligence, lest he fail to build a new structure after the old one has been razed. And there are those who say that the reason for this halakha is due to the disruption of prayer, for in the meantime there will be nowhere to pray.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诪专讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 住转专讬 讜讘谞讜 讘讬 拽讬讬讟讗 讘住讬转讜讜讗 讜讘谞讜 讘讬 住讬转讜讜讗 讘拽讬讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara answers that there is a difference between them in a situation where there is another synagogue. Even though the community has an alternative place to pray there is still a concern that the new synagogue will never get built. It is related that Mareimar and Mar Zutra demolished and built a summer synagogue in the winter, and, in like manner, they built a winter synagogue in the summer, so that the community would never be left without a synagogue.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讙讘讜 讝讜讝讬 讜诪讞转讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 诇讛讜 驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 讜讬讛讘讬 诇讛讜

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What is the halakha if money for the construction of a new synagogue has already been collected and it rests before us for that purpose? Is it then permitted to demolish the old synagogue before building the new one? Rav Ashi said to him: Even if the money has been collected there is still concern that perhaps an opportunity for redeeming captives will present itself, and they will hand over the money for that urgent requirement, and the community will be left without a synagogue.

砖专讬讙讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讜讛讚专讬 讛讜讚专讬 讜诪讞转讬 讻砖讜专讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪转专诪讬 诇讛讜 驻讚讬讜谉 砖讘讜讬讬诐 诪讝讘谞讬 讜讬讛讘讬 诇讛讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谞讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬专转讬讛 讚讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 诪讝讘谞讬

Ravina continues: What is the halakha if the bricks to be used for the construction of the new synagogue are piled up, the boards are prepared, and the beams are ready? Is it permitted to demolish the old synagogue before building the new one? Rav Ashi said to him: Even so, sometimes an opportunity for redeeming captives will present itself, and they will sell the building materials and hand over the proceeds for this purpose. Ravina raises an objection: If so, that is, if you are concerned that they will sell the materials to redeem captives, then even in a case where they already built the synagogue there should be a concern that they might come to sell the structure for that purpose, and therefore one should never be permitted to destroy an old synagogue. Rav Ashi said to him: People do not sell their residences, and certainly not their synagogues.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讘讛 转讬讜讛讗 讗讘诇 讞讝讬 讘讛 转讬讜讛讗 住转专讬 讜讘谞讬 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讗 讘讛 转讬讜讛讗 讘讻谞讬砖转讗 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 住转专讬讛 讜注讬讬诇 诇驻讜专讬讬讛 诇讛转诐 讜诇讗 讗驻拽讬讛 注讚 讚诪转拽讬谉 诇讬讛 砖驻讬讻讬

The Gemara comments: And we said that an old synagogue must not be razed before its replacement is built only in a case where cracks are not seen in the old synagogue. But if cracks are seen they may first demolish the old synagogue and then build the new one. This is like the incident involving Rav Ashi, who saw cracks in the synagogue in his town of Mata Me岣sya and immediately demolished it. He then brought his bed in there, to the building site, so that there should be no delays in the construction, as he himself required shelter from the rain, and he did not remove his bed from there until they finished building the synagogue and even affixed drainpipes to the structure.

讜讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 讛讬讻讬 讗住讘讬讛 诇讬讛 注爪讛 诇讛讜专讚讜住 诇诪讬住转专讬讛 诇讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诇讬住转讜专 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 注讚 讚讘谞讬 讘讬 讻谞讬砖转讗 讗讞专讬转讗 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转讬讜讛讗 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪诇讻讜转讗 砖讗谞讬 讚诇讗 讛讚专讗 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讗诪专 诪诇讻讜转讗 注拽专谞讗 讟讜专讬 注拽专 讟讜专讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: How could Bava ben Buta have advised Herod to raze the Temple and build another in its place, as will be described later? But doesn鈥檛 Rav 岣sda say that a person must not demolish a synagogue unless he first builds another synagogue to take its place? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he saw cracks in the old Temple structure. And if you wish, say that actions taken by the government are different, as the government does not go back on its decisions. Therefore, there is no need to be concerned about negligence, as there is in the case of ordinary people. As Shmuel says: If the government says it will uproot mountains, it will uproot mountains and not retract its word.

讛讜专讚讜住 注讘讚讗 讚讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 讛讜讛 谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 讘讗讜转讛 转讬谞讜拽转 讬讜诪讗 讞讚 砖诪注 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘转 拽诇讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 注讘讚讗 讚诪专讬讚 讛砖转讗 诪爪诇讞 拽诐 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 诪专讜转讬讛 讜砖讬讬专讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 讻讬 讞讝转 讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬谞住讘讛 住诇讬拽讗 诇讗讬讙专讗 讜专诪讗 拽诇讗 讗诪专讛 讻诇 诪讗谉 讚讗转讬 讜讗诪专 诪讘讬转 讞砖诪讜谞讗讬 拽讗转讬谞讗 注讘讚讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转讬讬专讗 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诇讗 讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 讜讛讛讬讗 讬谞讜拽转讗 谞驻诇讛 诪讗讬讙专讗 诇讗专注讗

搂 The Gemara elaborates on the episode involving Bava ben Buta. Herod was a slave in the house of the Hasmoneans. He set his eyes upon a certain young girl from the house of the Hasmoneans. One day that man, Herod, heard a Divine Voice that said: Any slave who rebels now will succeed. He rose up and killed all his masters, but spared that girl. When that girl saw that he wanted to marry her, she went up to the roof and raised her voice, and said: Whoever comes and says: I come from the house of the Hasmoneans, is a slave, since only that girl, i.e., I, remained from them. And that girl fell from the roof to the ground and died.

讟诪谞讛 砖讘注 砖谞讬谉 讘讚讜讘砖讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗 讚讟诪谞讛 诇讬转讜讘讬讛 诇讬爪专讬讛 讜讚讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讗 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讟诪谞讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讗诪专讜 讘转 诪诇讱 谞住讘

It is related that Herod preserved the girl鈥檚 body in honey for seven years to prevent it from decaying. There are those who say that he engaged in necrophilia with her corpse and there are those who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her corpse. According to those who say he engaged in necrophilia with her corpse, the reason that he preserved her body was to gratify his carnal desires. And according to those who say he did not engage in necrophilia with her corpse, the reason that he preserved her body was so that people would say he married a king鈥檚 daughter.

讗诪专 诪讗谉 讚专讬砖 诪拽专讘 讗讞讬讱 转砖讬诐 注诇讬讱 诪诇讱 专讘谞谉 拽诐 拽讟诇讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘拽讬讛 诇讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 诇诪砖拽诇 注爪讛 诪谞讬讛

Herod said to himself: Who expounds the verse: 鈥淥ne from among your brothers you shall set as king over you鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:15) as meaning that he who is appointed as king must come from a Jewish family and cannot be an emancipated slave or a convert? It is the Sages who expound the verse in this manner, insisting that a king must have Jewish roots. He then rose up and killed all the Sages, but spared Bava ben Buta in order to take counsel with him.

Scroll To Top