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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 20, 2017 | 讻状讘 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讝

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

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

Bava Batra 57

In what type of a case聽can brothers be involved together in testimony that would be allowed and in what type of case would it not? 聽The mishna lists types of acts that can create a chazaka of possession in another’s field and in which not. 聽There are a few different explanations given to the specific case discussed in the mishna.聽 Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Bena’a聽make certian recommendations regarding appropriate behavior including: not looking at women when they launder their clothes, how men should dress, how to set the table in a way that will be neat and minimize mess, on which side of the table the ring should jut out so it doesn’t harm others or cause children to play with it and what should one store under one’s bed look (only slippers so it shouldn’t be cluttered).


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

讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讞转讬诪讬 注诇讬讛 讘讬 转专讬 砖讻讬讘 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 讗讞讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讜讞讚 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讗讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讛 讚讗讬讚讱

The Gemara relates: There was a certain document that had the signatures of two individuals on it. One of the signatory witnesses died, and when the court sought to ratify the document, which requires either that the witnesses personally attest to the validity of their signatures or that two other witnesses attest to the validity of the signatures, the brother of the witness who remained alive and one other individual came to testify with regard to the signature of the other, deceased, witness, while the living witness attested to his own signature.

住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉

Ravina thought to say that this case is the same as the halakha in the mishna, which states that if testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testify about one year, and another, unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are considered to be three distinct testimonies. Similarly, in this case, one brother attests to his own signature, while the other brother attests to the signature of the deceased witness.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 谞讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讗讞讬 讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 谞讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讗讞讬

Rav Ashi said to him: Are these cases comparable? There, the property less one-quarter, i.e., three-quarters of the property in question, is not removed from the possession of the prior owner based upon the mouth, i.e., the testimony, of brothers. Each brother provides only half of the testimony for each year about which he testifies. Here, the property less one-quarter is removed from the possession of the debtor detailed in the document based upon the mouth of brothers. One brother attests to his own signature, which constitutes half of the testimony, while the other signature is authenticated by the testimony of the other brother and another individual. It follows that three-quarters of the testimony is given by brothers, and it is therefore invalid.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讛 诪注诪讬讚 讘讛诪讛 讘讞爪专 转谞讜专 专讬讞讬诐 讜讻讬专讬讬诐 讜诪讙讚诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜谞讜转谉 讝讘诇讜 讘讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讘诇 注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讘讛诪转讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讻谉 诇转谞讜专 讜讻谉 诇讻讬专讬讬诐 讜讻谉 诇专讬讞讬诐 讛讻谞讬住 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜注砖讛 诪拽讜诐 诇讝讘诇讜 注诪讜拽 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

MISHNA: These are uses of property that have the means to establish the presumption of ownership, and these are uses of property that do not have the means to establish the presumption of ownership: If one would stand an animal in a courtyard; or if one would place an oven, a millstone, or a stove there; or if one raises chickens in a courtyard, or places his fertilizer in a courtyard, these actions are not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. But if one constructed a partition ten handbreadths high to contain his animal, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his oven, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his stove, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his millstone; or if one brought chickens into the house, or if he fashioned a place in the ground for his fertilizer that is three handbreadths deep or three handbreadths high, these actions are sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause, where having an animal stand in a courtyard is insufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and what is different in the latter clause, where constructing a partition is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership?

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 拽谞讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 拽谞讛

Ulla says: With regard to any act which, if one were to perform it on ownerless property such as the property of a convert who dies without heirs he would acquire that property, that same act is sufficient for him to acquire the property of another if he performed it over the course of three years, provided it is accompanied by the claim that the property had been purchased. Conversely, any act that if one were to perform it on the property of a convert who died without heirs he would not acquire that property, that same act is sufficient for him to acquire the property of another. Taking possession of ownerless property requires an act to be done with regard to the property itself, such as constructing a partition, but merely having an animal stand there is not sufficient. Therefore, it does not establish the presumption of ownership.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 谞讬专 讚讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讛专讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讚讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav Sheshet objects to this explanation: And is this an established principle? But there is plowing, which, if performed on the property of a convert who died without heirs one acquires it, but if performed on the property of another one does not acquire it. And additionally, there is consumption of produce for the duration of three years, which, if performed on the property of another one acquires it by establishing the presumption of ownership, but if performed on the property of a convert who died without heirs one does not acquire it. These cases contradict Ulla鈥檚 claim that the modes of acquisition are analogous.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said:

讛讻讗 讘讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讛注诪讚讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗诪讞讬爪讛 拽驻讚讬

Here we are dealing with a courtyard belonging to partners, where they are not particular with regard to the mere placing of items in the courtyard, but are particular with regard to the construction of a partition. The presumption of ownership is established only where the lack of a protest indicates that the prior owner concedes that the property is no longer his. The co-owner鈥檚 silence in the face of his partner using the courtyard for a temporary purpose does not indicate a concession, but silence in the face of one who constructed a partition is a concession.

讜讘讛注诪讚讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专

The Gemara asks: And are they not particular with regard to the mere placing of items? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 45b): Partners who through vows prohibited themselves from deriving benefit from one another are forbidden to enter into a courtyard jointly owned by them, since each one has a portion in it, and it would be considered a violation of one鈥檚 vow if one were to benefit from any part of the other鈥檚 property? This indicates that partners are particular even with regard to passage through the field; all the more so are they particular with regard to placing animals or vessels in the field.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讗 讘专讞讘讛 砖诇 讗讞讜专讬 讘转讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讛注诪讚讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讗诪讞讬爪讛 拽驻讚讬

Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Here we are dealing with a fenced-in yard located behind a group of houses that is used to store items not in regular use, where they are not par-ticular with regard to the mere placing of items but are particular with regard to the construction of a partition.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讗讬讻讗 讚拽驻讚讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讙讘讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讙讘讬 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rav Pappa said: This and that, i.e., the rulings of the mishna in tractate Nedarim as well as the rulings of the mishna here, are stated with regard to a courtyard belonging to partners, and the reason for the difference in the rulings is that there are those who are particular with regard to the other partner placing items in or passing through the courtyard, and there are those who are not particular. Therefore, in the mishna here, which issues a ruling concerning monetary matters, the halakha is to be lenient, and it is assumed that the partner is not particular about placing items in the courtyard, and the presumption of ownership is established. In the mishna in tractate Nedarim, which issues a ruling concerning ritual matters, the halakha is to be stringent, to prevent one from violating a vow.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讬转讜专 讗住讜专 讘诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛

Ravina said: Actually, partners are not particular about placing items in the courtyard, and in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna in tractate Nedarim? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even negligible benefits ordinarily waived are forbidden in the case of one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another. In other words, one prohibited by a vow may not derive any benefit from the other, even a benefit that people commonly are not particular about and allow others to enjoy without first receiving permission. Therefore, although people are ordinarily not particular about others passing through their property, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from his partner is prohibited from walking on the property.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讘谞讗讛 讘讻诇 砖讜转驻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讻讘讬住讛 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛转讘讝讜转 注诇 讛讻讘讬住讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Bena鈥檃: Partners may prevent each other from using their courtyard for any purpose except for washing laundry. This is because it is not the way of Jewish women to be degraded over washing laundry by laundering their clothing in a public area. Therefore, they must be allowed to launder in the courtyard.

讜注爪诐 注讬谞讬讜 诪专讗讜转 讘专注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诪住转讻诇 讘谞砖讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诪讚讜转 注诇 讛讻讘讬住讛

In connection with the matter of laundry being washed in public, the Gemara quotes the homiletic interpretation of a verse: 鈥淗e that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he that despises the gain of oppressions, that shakes his hands from holding of bribes, that stops his ears from hearing of blood, and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil鈥 (Isaiah 33:15). Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says: This is referring to one who does not gaze at women while they are standing over the laundry, as it was common for them to stand in the water and raise the hems of their garments while laundering their clothing.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬转讗 专砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬转讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬转讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬谞住 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where there is another way by which the one walking could reach his destination, then one who walks past the women, consequently placing himself in a situation where he will be tempted to gaze at them, is wicked. Alternatively, if it is referring to a case where there is no other way by which he can reach his destination, then he is a victim of circumstance, so why is he required to shut his eyes? The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a case where there is no other way by which he can reach his destination, and even so, he is required to compel himself to avoid gazing at the women.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讘谞讗讛 讞诇讜拽 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讻讬爪讚 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘砖专讜 谞专讗讛 诪转讞转讬讜 讟诇讬转 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讻讬爪讚 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讜 谞专讗讛 诪转讞转讬讜 讟驻讞 砖诇讞谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讻讬爪讚 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讙讚讬诇 讜砖诇讬砖 讙诇讗讬 讜注诇讬讜 拽注专讜转 讜讬专拽 讜讟讘注转讜 诪讘讞讜抓

搂 The Gemara quotes additional matters that Rabbi Yo岣nan learned from Rabbi Bena鈥檃. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked Rabbi Bena鈥檃: How should the garment of a Torah scholar worn under his clothes be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that his flesh is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: How should the cloak of a Torah scholar be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that a handbreadth of his garment worn under his clothes is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: How should the table of a Torah scholar appear? He replied: Two-thirds of the table is covered with a cloth, and one-third is uncovered, and upon that third are dishes and vegetables. And its ring, used to hang the table, should be positioned on the outside, not on the side that faces the one who is eating.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讟讘注转讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讬谞讜拽讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that its ring should be positioned on the inside? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is a child who may play with the ring and overturn the table, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is no child present.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诪注讗 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诪注讗

And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is no child present, and this is not difficult: This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is an attendant who may bump into the ring, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is no attendant.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诪注讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讛讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗

And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is an attendant, and this is not difficult: This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the day, when the attendant can see the ring and avoid it, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the night.

讜砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚讜诪讛

The Gemara continues: All of the above is referring to the table of a Torah scholar, but the table of an ignoramus is similar

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Bava Batra 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 57

讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讞转讬诪讬 注诇讬讛 讘讬 转专讬 砖讻讬讘 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 讗讞讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚拽讗讬 讜讞讚 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗住讛讜讚讬 讗讞转讬诪转 讬讚讬讛 讚讗讬讚讱

The Gemara relates: There was a certain document that had the signatures of two individuals on it. One of the signatory witnesses died, and when the court sought to ratify the document, which requires either that the witnesses personally attest to the validity of their signatures or that two other witnesses attest to the validity of the signatures, the brother of the witness who remained alive and one other individual came to testify with regard to the signature of the other, deceased, witness, while the living witness attested to his own signature.

住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诇砖讛 讗讞讬谉 讜讗讞讚 诪爪讟专祝 注诪讛谉

Ravina thought to say that this case is the same as the halakha in the mishna, which states that if testimony was given by three brothers, each of whom testify about one year, and another, unrelated individual joined with each of the brothers as the second witness, these are considered to be three distinct testimonies. Similarly, in this case, one brother attests to his own signature, while the other brother attests to the signature of the deceased witness.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 谞讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讗讞讬 讛讻讗 谞驻讬拽 谞讻讬 专讬讘注讗 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讗讞讬

Rav Ashi said to him: Are these cases comparable? There, the property less one-quarter, i.e., three-quarters of the property in question, is not removed from the possession of the prior owner based upon the mouth, i.e., the testimony, of brothers. Each brother provides only half of the testimony for each year about which he testifies. Here, the property less one-quarter is removed from the possession of the debtor detailed in the document based upon the mouth of brothers. One brother attests to his own signature, which constitutes half of the testimony, while the other signature is authenticated by the testimony of the other brother and another individual. It follows that three-quarters of the testimony is given by brothers, and it is therefore invalid.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讜讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讛 诪注诪讬讚 讘讛诪讛 讘讞爪专 转谞讜专 专讬讞讬诐 讜讻讬专讬讬诐 讜诪讙讚诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬诐 讜谞讜转谉 讝讘诇讜 讘讞爪专 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讘诇 注砖讛 诪讞讬爪讛 诇讘讛诪转讜 讙讘讜讛 注砖专讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讻谉 诇转谞讜专 讜讻谉 诇讻讬专讬讬诐 讜讻谉 诇专讬讞讬诐 讛讻谞讬住 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诇转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讜注砖讛 诪拽讜诐 诇讝讘诇讜 注诪讜拽 砖诇砖讛 讗讜 讙讘讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讞讝拽讛

MISHNA: These are uses of property that have the means to establish the presumption of ownership, and these are uses of property that do not have the means to establish the presumption of ownership: If one would stand an animal in a courtyard; or if one would place an oven, a millstone, or a stove there; or if one raises chickens in a courtyard, or places his fertilizer in a courtyard, these actions are not sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership. But if one constructed a partition ten handbreadths high to contain his animal, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his oven, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his stove, and similarly if he constructed a partition for his millstone; or if one brought chickens into the house, or if he fashioned a place in the ground for his fertilizer that is three handbreadths deep or three handbreadths high, these actions are sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讬砖讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 住讬驻讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is different in the first clause, where having an animal stand in a courtyard is insufficient to establish the presumption of ownership, and what is different in the latter clause, where constructing a partition is sufficient to establish the presumption of ownership?

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 拽谞讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 拽谞讛

Ulla says: With regard to any act which, if one were to perform it on ownerless property such as the property of a convert who dies without heirs he would acquire that property, that same act is sufficient for him to acquire the property of another if he performed it over the course of three years, provided it is accompanied by the claim that the property had been purchased. Conversely, any act that if one were to perform it on the property of a convert who died without heirs he would not acquire that property, that same act is sufficient for him to acquire the property of another. Taking possession of ownerless property requires an act to be done with regard to the property itself, such as constructing a partition, but merely having an animal stand there is not sufficient. Therefore, it does not establish the presumption of ownership.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 谞讬专 讚讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讛专讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻讬专讜转 讚讘谞讻住讬 讞讘讬专讜 拽谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav Sheshet objects to this explanation: And is this an established principle? But there is plowing, which, if performed on the property of a convert who died without heirs one acquires it, but if performed on the property of another one does not acquire it. And additionally, there is consumption of produce for the duration of three years, which, if performed on the property of another one acquires it by establishing the presumption of ownership, but if performed on the property of a convert who died without heirs one does not acquire it. These cases contradict Ulla鈥檚 claim that the modes of acquisition are analogous.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said:

讛讻讗 讘讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讛注诪讚讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讗诪讞讬爪讛 拽驻讚讬

Here we are dealing with a courtyard belonging to partners, where they are not particular with regard to the mere placing of items in the courtyard, but are particular with regard to the construction of a partition. The presumption of ownership is established only where the lack of a protest indicates that the prior owner concedes that the property is no longer his. The co-owner鈥檚 silence in the face of his partner using the courtyard for a temporary purpose does not indicate a concession, but silence in the face of one who constructed a partition is a concession.

讜讘讛注诪讚讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞讚专讜 讛谞讗讛 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诇讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专

The Gemara asks: And are they not particular with regard to the mere placing of items? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 45b): Partners who through vows prohibited themselves from deriving benefit from one another are forbidden to enter into a courtyard jointly owned by them, since each one has a portion in it, and it would be considered a violation of one鈥檚 vow if one were to benefit from any part of the other鈥檚 property? This indicates that partners are particular even with regard to passage through the field; all the more so are they particular with regard to placing animals or vessels in the field.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻讗 讘专讞讘讛 砖诇 讗讞讜专讬 讘转讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讘讛注诪讚讛 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讗诪讞讬爪讛 拽驻讚讬

Rather, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Here we are dealing with a fenced-in yard located behind a group of houses that is used to store items not in regular use, where they are not par-ticular with regard to the mere placing of items but are particular with regard to the construction of a partition.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讜讗讬讻讗 讚拽驻讚讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讙讘讬 诪诪讜谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讙讘讬 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讞讜诪专讗

Rav Pappa said: This and that, i.e., the rulings of the mishna in tractate Nedarim as well as the rulings of the mishna here, are stated with regard to a courtyard belonging to partners, and the reason for the difference in the rulings is that there are those who are particular with regard to the other partner placing items in or passing through the courtyard, and there are those who are not particular. Therefore, in the mishna here, which issues a ruling concerning monetary matters, the halakha is to be lenient, and it is assumed that the partner is not particular about placing items in the courtyard, and the presumption of ownership is established. In the mishna in tractate Nedarim, which issues a ruling concerning ritual matters, the halakha is to be stringent, to prevent one from violating a vow.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讜讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讜讬转讜专 讗住讜专 讘诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛

Ravina said: Actually, partners are not particular about placing items in the courtyard, and in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna in tractate Nedarim? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even negligible benefits ordinarily waived are forbidden in the case of one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another. In other words, one prohibited by a vow may not derive any benefit from the other, even a benefit that people commonly are not particular about and allow others to enjoy without first receiving permission. Therefore, although people are ordinarily not particular about others passing through their property, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from his partner is prohibited from walking on the property.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讘谞讗讛 讘讻诇 砖讜转驻讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讻讘讬住讛 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛转讘讝讜转 注诇 讛讻讘讬住讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Bena鈥檃: Partners may prevent each other from using their courtyard for any purpose except for washing laundry. This is because it is not the way of Jewish women to be degraded over washing laundry by laundering their clothing in a public area. Therefore, they must be allowed to launder in the courtyard.

讜注爪诐 注讬谞讬讜 诪专讗讜转 讘专注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 诪住转讻诇 讘谞砖讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖注讜诪讚讜转 注诇 讛讻讘讬住讛

In connection with the matter of laundry being washed in public, the Gemara quotes the homiletic interpretation of a verse: 鈥淗e that walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he that despises the gain of oppressions, that shakes his hands from holding of bribes, that stops his ears from hearing of blood, and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil鈥 (Isaiah 33:15). Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says: This is referring to one who does not gaze at women while they are standing over the laundry, as it was common for them to stand in the water and raise the hems of their garments while laundering their clothing.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬转讗 专砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬转讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬转讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬谞住 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If it is referring to a case where there is another way by which the one walking could reach his destination, then one who walks past the women, consequently placing himself in a situation where he will be tempted to gaze at them, is wicked. Alternatively, if it is referring to a case where there is no other way by which he can reach his destination, then he is a victim of circumstance, so why is he required to shut his eyes? The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to a case where there is no other way by which he can reach his destination, and even so, he is required to compel himself to avoid gazing at the women.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讘讬 讘谞讗讛 讞诇讜拽 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讻讬爪讚 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘砖专讜 谞专讗讛 诪转讞转讬讜 讟诇讬转 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讻讬爪讚 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞诇讜拽讜 谞专讗讛 诪转讞转讬讜 讟驻讞 砖诇讞谉 砖诇 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 讻讬爪讚 砖谞讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讙讚讬诇 讜砖诇讬砖 讙诇讗讬 讜注诇讬讜 拽注专讜转 讜讬专拽 讜讟讘注转讜 诪讘讞讜抓

搂 The Gemara quotes additional matters that Rabbi Yo岣nan learned from Rabbi Bena鈥檃. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked Rabbi Bena鈥檃: How should the garment of a Torah scholar worn under his clothes be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that his flesh is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: How should the cloak of a Torah scholar be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that a handbreadth of his garment worn under his clothes is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yo岣nan asked: How should the table of a Torah scholar appear? He replied: Two-thirds of the table is covered with a cloth, and one-third is uncovered, and upon that third are dishes and vegetables. And its ring, used to hang the table, should be positioned on the outside, not on the side that faces the one who is eating.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讟讘注转讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讬谞讜拽讗

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that its ring should be positioned on the inside? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is a child who may play with the ring and overturn the table, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is no child present.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讬谞讜拽讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诪注讗 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖诪注讗

And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is no child present, and this is not difficult: This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is an attendant who may bump into the ring, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is no attendant.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖诪注讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讛讗 讘诇讬诇讬讗

And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is an attendant, and this is not difficult: This baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the day, when the attendant can see the ring and avoid it, while that baraita, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the night.

讜砖诇 注诐 讛讗专抓 讚讜诪讛

The Gemara continues: All of the above is referring to the table of a Torah scholar, but the table of an ignoramus is similar

Scroll To Top