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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 23, 2017 | 讻状讛 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 60

In what types of cases can one not build an opening (window or door) from his house? 聽In extending an existing door, there are issues regarding not only seeing into the neighbor’s property but also in doing so, one gains rights to more space of the commonly shared courtyard as the space directly in front of the door belongs to the owner of the house. 聽What if one has something that juts out into public space? 聽There are two stories brought of people who came before rabbis who ruled they had to get rid of it but the rabbis themselves had something similar or the same in their own property. 聽The stories highlight the needs of leaders to hold themselves to higher standards or at least to the same standards as they demand of others. 聽In the context of things one must do to remember the destruction, the gemara聽discusses the concept of moderation and the concept of not demanding something of the people that they will not be able to keep.


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

讜诇住转讜诐 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖住讜转诪讬诐 讗讜专讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讜砖讜转拽

And to seal, i.e., if one sealed another鈥檚 window in his presence, there is an acquired privilege established immediately to keep the window sealed, as it is not common behavior for a person to have his source of light sealed in his presence and remain silent. The fact that he did not immediately protest indicates that the one who sealed the window had the legal right to do so unilaterally, or that the owner of the window agreed.

诇拽讞 讘讬转 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 诇讗 讬驻转讞谞讜 诇讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专讘讛 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛讚专讱

搂 The mishna teaches that if one purchased a house in another, adjacent courtyard, he may not open the house into a courtyard belonging to partners. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Because by adding residents to the courtyard it increases their traffic, and the residents of the courtyard do not wish to be disturbed by additional people passing through.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 讗诐 专爪讛 讘讜谞讛 讗转 讛讞讚专 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讘讬转讜 讜讘讜谞讛 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讚专讱 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讞讚专 砖讞诇拽讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 讗驻转讗讬

The Gemara questions this. But say the last clause of the mishna: Rather, if he desired to build a loft, he may build a room within his house, or he may build a loft above his house, and have it open into his house, not directly into the courtyard. But if he does so, isn鈥檛 there still a concern that it increases the traffic? Rav Huna said as an explanation: What does the mishna mean when it says that he may build a room? It means that he may divide an existing room in two. And what is the loft to which the mishna is referring? It is an internal story created by dividing an existing space into two stories.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬驻转讞 讗讚诐 诇讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 驻转讞 讻谞讙讚 驻转讞 讜讞诇讜谉 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谉 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 驻讜转讞 讛讜讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻转讞 讻谞讙讚 驻转讞 讜讞诇讜谉 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谉 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讞讚 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 砖谞讬诐

MISHNA: A person may not open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward a courtyard belonging to partners, so as to ensure that the residents will enjoy a measure of privacy. If there was a small entrance he may not enlarge it. If there was one entrance he may not fashion it into two. But one may open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward the public domain. Similarly, if there was a small entrance he may enlarge it, and if there was one entrance he may fashion it into two.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖讗 讘诇注诐 讗转 注讬谞讬讜 讜讬专讗 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻谉 诇砖讘讟讬讜 诪讛 专讗讛 专讗讛 砖讗讬谉 驻转讞讬 讗讛诇讬讛诐 诪讻讜讜谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诪专 专讗讜讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖转砖专讛 注诇讬讛诐 砖讻讬谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that one may not open an en-trance opposite another entrance, or a window opposite another window, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling tribe by tribe; and the spirit of God came upon him鈥 (Numbers 24:2). The Gemara explains: What was it that Balaam saw that so inspired him? He saw that the entrances of their tents were not aligned with each other, ensuring that each family enjoyed a measure of privacy. And he said: If this is the case, these people are worthy of having the Divine Presence rest on them.

讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘专 讗专讘注讬 诇讗 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 讘专 转诪谞讬讗 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 转诪谞讬讗 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讘专 转专转讬 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 讘专 讗专讘注讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬转讞讗 讝讜讟专讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱 讘驻讬转讞讗 专讘讛 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱

The mishna teaches that if there was a small entrance he may not enlarge it. Rami bar 岣ma thought to say this means that if the entrance was the width of four cubits, one may not fashion it to the width of eight cubits, as he would then be allowed to take eight corresponding cubits in the courtyard. The halakha is that one is entitled to utilize the area of the courtyard up to a depth of four cubits along the width of the opening. But if the entrance was the width of two cubits and one wishes to fashion it to the width of four cubits, one may well do so, as in any event he already had the right to use an area of four cubits by four cubits in front of the entrance. Rava said to him: This is not so, as his neighbor can say to him: I can conceal myself from you with there being a small entrance, but I cannot conceal myself from you with there being a large entrance.

讗讞讚 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘专 讗专讘注讬 诇讗 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 转专讬 讘谞讬 转专转讬 转专转讬 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 转诪谞讬 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讘专 转诪谞讬 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 讘谞讬 讗专讘注讬 讗专讘注讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讞讚 驻讬转讞讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱 讘转专讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱

The mishna teaches that if there was one entrance he may not fashion it into two. In this case as well, Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that this means if the entrance was the width of four cubits he may not make it into two openings, each the width of two cubits, as he would then be allowed to take eight corresponding cubits in the courtyard, four for each entrance. But if it was the width of eight cubits and he wishes to make it into two openings, each the width of four cubits, he may well do so, as in any event he already had the right to use an area of eight cubits by four cubits in front of his entrance. Rava said to him: This is not so, as his neighbor can say to him: I can conceal myself from you with there being one entrance, but I cannot conceal myself from you with there being two entrances.

讗讘诇 驻讜转讞 讛讜讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻转讞 讻谞讙讚 驻转讞 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 讘注讬转 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The mishna teaches: But one may open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward the public domain. Why is this so? Because he can say to the one who wishes to protest: Ultimately, you must conceal yourself from the people of the public domain. Since you cannot stop them from passing by and therefore cannot engage in behavior that requires privacy with your entrance open, it is of no consequence to you if I open an entrance as well.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞诇诇 转讞转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转讬专 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 注讙诇讛 诪讛诇讻转 讜讟注讜谞讛 讗讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讝讬讝讬谉 讜讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 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 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转讛

MISHNA: One may not form an empty space be-neath the public domain by digging pits, ditches, or caves. Rabbi Eliezer deems it permitted for one to do so, provided that he places a covering strong enough that a wagon laden with stones would be able to tread on it without breaking it, therefore ensuring that the empty space will not cause any damage to those in the public domain. One may not extend projections or balconies [ugzuztraot] into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. If one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies 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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪驻讞讬转 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that if the covering of the space is strong enough to support a wagon laden with stones then it is permitted to dig out the empty space, is eminently reasonable; but what do the Rabbis hold? The Gemara answers: There are times when the cover erodes over time, and he is not aware, thereby potentially causing damage to those in the public domain.

讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讝讬讝讬谉 讜讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 谞驻讬拽 诇诪讘讜讗讛 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 注诇讬讛 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓

The mishna teaches that one may not extend projections or balconies into the public domain. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami had a projection that protruded into an alleyway, and a certain man also had a projection that protruded into the public domain, and the general public was preventing the man from leaving it there, as it interfered with traffic. He came before Rabbi Ami, who said to him: Go sever your projection.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪专 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬 诇诪讘讜讗讛 诪驻讬拽 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讗讛 诪讞诇讬谉 讙讘讗讬 讚讬讚讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻讬拽 诪讗谉 诪讞讬诇 讙讘讱

The man said to him: But the Master also has a similar projection. Rabbi Ami said to him: It is different, as mine protrudes into an alleyway, where a limited number of people live, and the residents of the alleyway waive their right to protest to me. Yours protrudes into the public domain, which does not belong to any specific individuals. Who can waive their right to protest to you?

专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗转讜 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yannai had a tree that was leaning into the public domain. There was a certain man who also had a tree that was leaning into the public domain, and the general public was preventing him from leaving it there, insisting he cut it down, as required by the mishna (27b). He came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him:

讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讘诇讬诇讬讗 砖讚专 拽爪讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讚讬讚讬讛

Go now, and come tomorrow. At night, Rabbi Yannai sent and had someone cut down that tree that belonged to him.

诇诪讞专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪专 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讞讝讬 讗讬 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讬 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讱 讗讬 诇讗 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讬 诇讗 转拽讜抓 讗转

The next day, that man came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him: Go, cut down your tree. The man said to him: But the Master also has a tree that leans into the public domain. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and see: If mine is cut down, then cut yours down. If mine is not cut down, you do not have to cut yours down, either.

诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讬转讘讬 讘讟讜诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讗 讚拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 砖讚专 拽爪讬讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讱 讜讛讚专 讗拽讜抓 讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讛转拽讜砖砖讜 讜拽讜砖讜 拽砖讜讟 注爪诪讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽砖讜讟 讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara asks: At the outset what did Rabbi Yannai hold, and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara replies: At the outset, he held that the general public is amenable to having the tree there, as they sit in its shade. Once he saw that they were preventing someone else who owned a tree from keeping his, he understood that it was only out of respect that they did not object to his tree being there. He therefore sent someone to cut it down. The Gemara asks: But why did he tell the man to return the next day? Let him say to him: Go cut down your tree, and then I will cut mine down. The Gemara answers: Because of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said: The verse states: 鈥淕ather yourselves together and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]鈥 (Zephaniah 2:1), and this can be explained homiletically to mean: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others, i.e., act properly before requiring others to do so.

讗讘诇 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻谞住 讜诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讜爪讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻谞住 诪讜爪讬讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches that one may not extend projections or balconies into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one drew back into his property but did not extend the projection at that time, what is the halakha concerning whether he may return and extend it at a later date? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one drew back into his property, he may extend it even later, and Reish Lakish says: If one drew back into his property but did not build the projection at that time, he may not extend it later.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜爪讬讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛讞讝讬专 讻转诇讬诐 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜讗讬驻讻讗 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讞讝讬专

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the dispute: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa: I will explain the matter to you. To later extend a projection, everyone agrees that he may extend it, since he is adding within his own property. Where they disagree is with regard to whether he may return the walls to their prior place. And with regard to this disagreement the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he may not return the walls to their prior place, and Reish Lakish says he may return them.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪专 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽诇拽诇讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讞讝讬专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 专讜讜讞讗 讛讻讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞讗

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he may not return the walls to their prior place because of the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, it is prohibited to ruin it, i.e., to prevent people from using it. Once the public has become accustomed to using the place where his wall had stood, he may not repossess that space. And Reish Lakish says that he may return the walls to their prior place, because that matter applies in a case where there is no space, i.e., if he were to move back the wall there would be no space for the public to walk, but here there is space, since they can still walk through the public domain.

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 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞驻诇讛 讞讜讝专 讜讘讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The mishna teaches that if one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, allowing the owner to use the projections. Rav Huna says: If the wall of the courtyard fell, he may return and build it as it was, including the projections or balconies.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 诪住讬讬讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪驻讬讬讞讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诇拽讞 讞爪专 诪住讜讬讚转 诪讻讜讬专转 诪驻讜讬讞转 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转讛 谞驻诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜讘讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara raises an objection based on that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:17): One may not plaster, and one may not tile, and one may not paint [mefayye岣n] images in the present, as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. But if one purchased a courtyard that was plastered, tiled, or painted with images, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, and it is assumed that it was done in a permitted manner. If it then fell, he may not return and build it in its previous form. This indicates that one may not rebuild a building in a manner that is prohibited, even if there was an acquired privilege to maintain it in that manner.

讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: A case of forbidden matters is different, i.e., in the case of the baraita, he may not rebuild it because it is prohibited for him to do so. In this mishna, the issue is encroachment upon the rights of others, and once he had an acquired privilege to use the projections or balconies, he maintains that right.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬住讜讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讬转讜 讘住讬讚 讜讗诐 注讬专讘 讘讜 讞讜诇 讗讜 转讘谉 诪讜转专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讬专讘 讘讜 讞讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讟专讻住讬讚 讜讗住讜专 转讘谉 诪讜转专

搂 With regard to the ruling of the above-quoted baraita, the Sages taught (Tosefta, Sota 15:9): A person may not plaster his house with plaster, but if he mixed sand or straw into the plaster, which dulls its luster, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he mixed sand into it, it is white cement [terakesid], which is of a higher quality than standard plaster, and it is prohibited, but if he mixed in straw, it is permitted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讘砖谞讬讛 专讘讜 驻专讜砖讬谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 谞讟驻诇 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘谞讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬 讗转诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘砖专 讜讗讬谉 讗转诐 砖讜转讬谉 讬讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖诪诪谞讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜注讻砖讬讜 讘讟诇 谞砖转讛 讬讬谉 砖诪谞住讻讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注讻砖讬讜 讘讟诇

搂 Having mentioned the prohibition against plastering, which is a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, the Gemara discusses related matters. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:11): When the Temple was destroyed a second time, there was an increase in the number of ascetics among the Jews, whose practice was to not eat meat and to not drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua joined them to discuss their practice. He said to them: My children, for what reason do you not eat meat and do you not drink wine? They said to him: Shall we eat meat, from which offerings are sacrificed upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Shall we drink wine, which is poured as a libation upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist?

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诐 讻谉 诇讞诐 诇讗 谞讗讻诇 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜 诪谞讞讜转 讗驻砖专 讘驻讬专讜转 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 谞讗讻诇 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗驻砖专 讘驻讬专讜转 讗讞专讬诐 诪讬诐 诇讗 谞砖转讛 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 砖转拽讜

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: If so, we will not eat bread either, since the meal-offerings that were offered upon the altar have ceased. They replied: You are correct. It is possible to subsist with produce. He said to them: We will not eat produce either, since the bringing of the first fruits have ceased. They replied: You are correct. We will no longer eat the produce of the seven species from which the first fruits were brought, as it is possible to subsist with other produce. He said to them: If so, we will not drink water, since the water libation has ceased. They were silent, as they realized that they could not survive without water.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘谞讬 讘讜讗讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇讻诐 砖诇讗 诇讛转讗讘诇 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 谞讙讝专讛 讙讝专讛 讜诇讛转讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讜讘 爪讘讜专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讗专讛 讗转诐 谞讗专讬诐 讜讗转讬 讗转诐 拽讘注讬诐 讛讙讜讬 讻诇讜

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: My children, come, and I will tell you how we should act. To not mourn at all is impossible, as the decree was already issued and the Temple has been destroyed. But to mourn excessively as you are doing is also impossible, as the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it, as it is written: 鈥淵ou are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation鈥 (Malachi 3:9), indicating that the prophet rebukes the people for neglecting observances only if they were accepted by the whole nation.

讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 住讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讬转讜 讘住讬讚 讜诪砖讬讬专 讘讜 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻谞讙讚 讛驻转讞

Rabbi Yehoshua continues: Rather, this is what the Sages said: A person may plaster his house with plaster, but he must leave over a small amount in it without plaster to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: And how much is a small amount? Rav Yosef said: One cubit by one cubit. Rav 岣sda said: This should be opposite the entrance, so that it is visible to all.

注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪专讻讬 住注讜讚讛 讜诪砖讬讬专 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗

Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a person may prepare all that he needs for a meal, but he must leave out a small item to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small item? Rav Pappa said: Something akin to small, fried fish.

注讜砖讛 讗砖讛 讻诇 转讻砖讬讟讬讛 讜诪砖讬讬专转 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘转 爪讚注讗 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗砖讻讞讱 讬专讜砖诇诐 转砖讻讞 讬诪讬谞讬 转讚讘拽 诇砖讜谞讬 诇讞讻讬 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a woman may engage in all of her cosmetic treatments, but she must leave out a small matter to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small matter? Rav said: She does not remove hair from the place on the temple from which women would remove hair. The source for these practices is a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淚f I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember you not; if I set not Jerusalem above my highest joy鈥 (Psalms 137:5鈥6).

诪讗讬 注诇 专讗砖 砖诪讞转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讝讛 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 砖讘专讗砖 讞转谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬讻讗 诪谞讞 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诇砖讜诐 诇讗讘诇讬 爪讬讜谉 诇转转 诇讛诐 驻讗专 转讞转 讗驻专

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Above my highest [rosh] joy? Rav Yitz岣k says: This is referring to the burnt ashes that are customarily placed on the head [rosh] of bridegrooms at the time of their wedding celebrations, to remember the destruction of the Temple. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Where are they placed? Abaye replied: On the place where phylacteries are placed, as it is stated: 鈥淭o appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give to them a garland in place of ashes鈥 (Isaiah 61:3). Since phylacteries are referred to as a garland (see Ezekiel 24:17), it may be inferred from this verse that the ashes were placed in the same place as the phylacteries.

讜讻诇 讛诪转讗讘诇 注诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讝讜讻讛 讜专讜讗讛 讘砖诪讞转讛 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪讞讜 讗转 讬专讜砖诇诐 讜讙讜壮

The baraita continues: And anyone who mourns for the destruction of Jerusalem will merit and see its joy, as it is stated: 鈥淩ejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all that mourn for her鈥 (Isaiah 66:10).

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖谞讙讝讜专 注诇 注爪诪谞讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专 讜诇讗 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 讙讝专讛 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讜讘 爪讘讜专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘讛

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:10) that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, by right, we should decree upon ourselves not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it.

讜诪讬讜诐 砖驻砖讟讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 砖讙讜讝专转 注诇讬谞讜 讙讝讬专讜转 专注讜转 讜拽砖讜转 讜诪讘讟诇转 诪诪谞讜 转讜专讛 讜诪爪讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讞转 讗讜转谞讜 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖讘讜注 讛讘谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讬砖讜注 讛讘谉 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖谞讙讝讜专 注诇 注爪诪谞讜 砖诇讗 诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诇讛讜诇讬讚 讘谞讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讻诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜

And from the day that the wicked kingdom, i.e., Rome, spread, who decree evil and harsh decrees upon us, and nullify Torah study and the performance of mitzvot for us, and do not allow us to enter the celebration of the first week of a son, i.e., circumcision, and some say: To enter the celebration of the salvation of a firstborn son; by right we should each decree upon ourselves not to marry a woman and not to produce offspring, and it will turn out that the descendants of Abraham our forefather will cease to exist on their own, rather than being forced into a situation where there are sons who are not circumcised.

讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讬讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉

But concerning a situation such as this, the following principle is applied: Leave the Jews alone and do not impose decrees by which they cannot abide. It is better that they be unwitting sinners, who do not know that what they are doing is improper considering the circumstances, and not be intentional wrongdoers, who marry and procreate despite knowing that they should not.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞讝拽转 讛讘转讬诐

 

  • 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 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 60

讜诇住转讜诐 诇讗诇转专 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖住讜转诪讬诐 讗讜专讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讜砖讜转拽

And to seal, i.e., if one sealed another鈥檚 window in his presence, there is an acquired privilege established immediately to keep the window sealed, as it is not common behavior for a person to have his source of light sealed in his presence and remain silent. The fact that he did not immediately protest indicates that the one who sealed the window had the legal right to do so unilaterally, or that the owner of the window agreed.

诇拽讞 讘讬转 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转 诇讗 讬驻转讞谞讜 诇讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专讘讛 注诇讬讛诐 讗转 讛讚专讱

搂 The mishna teaches that if one purchased a house in another, adjacent courtyard, he may not open the house into a courtyard belonging to partners. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? Because by adding residents to the courtyard it increases their traffic, and the residents of the courtyard do not wish to be disturbed by additional people passing through.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 讗诐 专爪讛 讘讜谞讛 讗转 讛讞讚专 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讘讬转讜 讜讘讜谞讛 注诇讬讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讬转讜 讜讛诇讗 诪专讘讛 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讚专讱 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讞讚专 砖讞诇拽讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诪讗讬 注诇讬讬讛 讗驻转讗讬

The Gemara questions this. But say the last clause of the mishna: Rather, if he desired to build a loft, he may build a room within his house, or he may build a loft above his house, and have it open into his house, not directly into the courtyard. But if he does so, isn鈥檛 there still a concern that it increases the traffic? Rav Huna said as an explanation: What does the mishna mean when it says that he may build a room? It means that he may divide an existing room in two. And what is the loft to which the mishna is referring? It is an internal story created by dividing an existing space into two stories.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讬驻转讞 讗讚诐 诇讞爪专 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 驻转讞 讻谞讙讚 驻转讞 讜讞诇讜谉 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谉 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 驻讜转讞 讛讜讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻转讞 讻谞讙讚 驻转讞 讜讞诇讜谉 讻谞讙讚 讞诇讜谉 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讞讚 注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 砖谞讬诐

MISHNA: A person may not open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward a courtyard belonging to partners, so as to ensure that the residents will enjoy a measure of privacy. If there was a small entrance he may not enlarge it. If there was one entrance he may not fashion it into two. But one may open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward the public domain. Similarly, if there was a small entrance he may enlarge it, and if there was one entrance he may fashion it into two.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖讗 讘诇注诐 讗转 注讬谞讬讜 讜讬专讗 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讻谉 诇砖讘讟讬讜 诪讛 专讗讛 专讗讛 砖讗讬谉 驻转讞讬 讗讛诇讬讛诐 诪讻讜讜谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诪专 专讗讜讬谉 讛诇诇讜 砖转砖专讛 注诇讬讛诐 砖讻讬谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, i.e., that one may not open an en-trance opposite another entrance, or a window opposite another window, derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the verse states: 鈥淎nd Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel dwelling tribe by tribe; and the spirit of God came upon him鈥 (Numbers 24:2). The Gemara explains: What was it that Balaam saw that so inspired him? He saw that the entrances of their tents were not aligned with each other, ensuring that each family enjoyed a measure of privacy. And he said: If this is the case, these people are worthy of having the Divine Presence rest on them.

讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘专 讗专讘注讬 诇讗 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 讘专 转诪谞讬讗 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 转诪谞讬讗 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讘专 转专转讬 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 讘专 讗专讘注讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬转讞讗 讝讜讟专讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱 讘驻讬转讞讗 专讘讛 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱

The mishna teaches that if there was a small entrance he may not enlarge it. Rami bar 岣ma thought to say this means that if the entrance was the width of four cubits, one may not fashion it to the width of eight cubits, as he would then be allowed to take eight corresponding cubits in the courtyard. The halakha is that one is entitled to utilize the area of the courtyard up to a depth of four cubits along the width of the opening. But if the entrance was the width of two cubits and one wishes to fashion it to the width of four cubits, one may well do so, as in any event he already had the right to use an area of four cubits by four cubits in front of the entrance. Rava said to him: This is not so, as his neighbor can say to him: I can conceal myself from you with there being a small entrance, but I cannot conceal myself from you with there being a large entrance.

讗讞讚 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 住讘专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘专 讗专讘注讬 诇讗 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 转专讬 讘谞讬 转专转讬 转专转讬 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇 转诪谞讬 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讘专 转诪谞讬 诇讬砖讜讬讬讛 讘谞讬 讗专讘注讬 讗专讘注讬 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讞讚 驻讬转讞讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱 讘转专讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讬谞讱

The mishna teaches that if there was one entrance he may not fashion it into two. In this case as well, Rami bar 岣ma thought to say that this means if the entrance was the width of four cubits he may not make it into two openings, each the width of two cubits, as he would then be allowed to take eight corresponding cubits in the courtyard, four for each entrance. But if it was the width of eight cubits and he wishes to make it into two openings, each the width of four cubits, he may well do so, as in any event he already had the right to use an area of eight cubits by four cubits in front of his entrance. Rava said to him: This is not so, as his neighbor can say to him: I can conceal myself from you with there being one entrance, but I cannot conceal myself from you with there being two entrances.

讗讘诇 驻讜转讞 讛讜讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻转讞 讻谞讙讚 驻转讞 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 讘注讬转 讗爪讟谞讜注讬 诪讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The mishna teaches: But one may open an entrance opposite another entrance or a window opposite another window toward the public domain. Why is this so? Because he can say to the one who wishes to protest: Ultimately, you must conceal yourself from the people of the public domain. Since you cannot stop them from passing by and therefore cannot engage in behavior that requires privacy with your entrance open, it is of no consequence to you if I open an entrance as well.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讞诇诇 转讞转 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转讬专 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 注讙诇讛 诪讛诇讻转 讜讟注讜谞讛 讗讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讝讬讝讬谉 讜讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诇讗 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 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 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转讛

MISHNA: One may not form an empty space be-neath the public domain by digging pits, ditches, or caves. Rabbi Eliezer deems it permitted for one to do so, provided that he places a covering strong enough that a wagon laden with stones would be able to tread on it without breaking it, therefore ensuring that the empty space will not cause any damage to those in the public domain. One may not extend projections or balconies [ugzuztraot] into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. If one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies 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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘谞谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪驻讞讬转 讜诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 opinion that if the covering of the space is strong enough to support a wagon laden with stones then it is permitted to dig out the empty space, is eminently reasonable; but what do the Rabbis hold? The Gemara answers: There are times when the cover erodes over time, and he is not aware, thereby potentially causing damage to those in the public domain.

讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讝讬讝讬谉 讜讙讝讜讝讟专讗讜转 讜讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 谞驻讬拽 诇诪讘讜讗讛 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讬讝讗 讚讛讜讛 诪驻讬拽 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 注诇讬讛 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓

The mishna teaches that one may not extend projections or balconies into the public domain. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami had a projection that protruded into an alleyway, and a certain man also had a projection that protruded into the public domain, and the general public was preventing the man from leaving it there, as it interfered with traffic. He came before Rabbi Ami, who said to him: Go sever your projection.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪专 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬 诇诪讘讜讗讛 诪驻讬拽 讘谞讬 诪讘讜讗讛 诪讞诇讬谉 讙讘讗讬 讚讬讚讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪驻讬拽 诪讗谉 诪讞讬诇 讙讘讱

The man said to him: But the Master also has a similar projection. Rabbi Ami said to him: It is different, as mine protrudes into an alleyway, where a limited number of people live, and the residents of the alleyway waive their right to protest to me. Yours protrudes into the public domain, which does not belong to any specific individuals. Who can waive their right to protest to you?

专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬诇谉 讛谞讜讟讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗转讜 讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讜 拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 注讬诇讜讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yannai had a tree that was leaning into the public domain. There was a certain man who also had a tree that was leaning into the public domain, and the general public was preventing him from leaving it there, insisting he cut it down, as required by the mishna (27b). He came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him:

讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讘诇讬诇讬讗 砖讚专 拽爪讬讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 讚讬讚讬讛

Go now, and come tomorrow. At night, Rabbi Yannai sent and had someone cut down that tree that belonged to him.

诇诪讞专 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪专 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讞讝讬 讗讬 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讬 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讱 讗讬 诇讗 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讬 诇讗 转拽讜抓 讗转

The next day, that man came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him: Go, cut down your tree. The man said to him: But the Master also has a tree that leans into the public domain. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and see: If mine is cut down, then cut yours down. If mine is not cut down, you do not have to cut yours down, either.

诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪注讬拽专讗 住讘专 谞讬讞讗 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讬转讘讬 讘讟讜诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讗 讚拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 砖讚专 拽爪讬讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 拽讜抓 讚讬讚讱 讜讛讚专 讗拽讜抓 讚讬讚讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 讛转拽讜砖砖讜 讜拽讜砖讜 拽砖讜讟 注爪诪讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽砖讜讟 讗讞专讬诐

The Gemara asks: At the outset what did Rabbi Yannai hold, and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara replies: At the outset, he held that the general public is amenable to having the tree there, as they sit in its shade. Once he saw that they were preventing someone else who owned a tree from keeping his, he understood that it was only out of respect that they did not object to his tree being there. He therefore sent someone to cut it down. The Gemara asks: But why did he tell the man to return the next day? Let him say to him: Go cut down your tree, and then I will cut mine down. The Gemara answers: Because of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said: The verse states: 鈥淕ather yourselves together and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]鈥 (Zephaniah 2:1), and this can be explained homiletically to mean: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others, i.e., act properly before requiring others to do so.

讗讘诇 讗诐 专爪讛 讻讜谞住 诇转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻谞住 讜诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛讜 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讜爪讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻谞住 诪讜爪讬讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讻谞住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches that one may not extend projections or balconies into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one drew back into his property but did not extend the projection at that time, what is the halakha concerning whether he may return and extend it at a later date? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one drew back into his property, he may extend it even later, and Reish Lakish says: If one drew back into his property but did not build the projection at that time, he may not extend it later.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜爪讬讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讛讞讝讬专 讻转诇讬诐 诇诪拽讜诪谉 讜讗讬驻讻讗 讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讞讝讬专

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the dispute: Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa: I will explain the matter to you. To later extend a projection, everyone agrees that he may extend it, since he is adding within his own property. Where they disagree is with regard to whether he may return the walls to their prior place. And with regard to this disagreement the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yo岣nan says he may not return the walls to their prior place, and Reish Lakish says he may return them.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪专 砖讛讞讝讬拽讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讗住讜专 诇拽诇拽诇讜 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讞讝讬专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 专讜讜讞讗 讛讻讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专讜讜讞讗

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he may not return the walls to their prior place because of the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, it is prohibited to ruin it, i.e., to prevent people from using it. Once the public has become accustomed to using the place where his wall had stood, he may not repossess that space. And Reish Lakish says that he may return the walls to their prior place, because that matter applies in a case where there is no space, i.e., if he were to move back the wall there would be no space for the public to walk, but here there is space, since they can still walk through the public domain.

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 讛讬讗 讘讞讝拽转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞驻诇讛 讞讜讝专 讜讘讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The mishna teaches that if one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, allowing the owner to use the projections. Rav Huna says: If the wall of the courtyard fell, he may return and build it as it was, including the projections or balconies.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 诪住讬讬讚讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪讻讬讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪驻讬讬讞讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诇拽讞 讞爪专 诪住讜讬讚转 诪讻讜讬专转 诪驻讜讬讞转 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转讛 谞驻诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜讘讜谞讛 讗讜转讛

The Gemara raises an objection based on that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:17): One may not plaster, and one may not tile, and one may not paint [mefayye岣n] images in the present, as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. But if one purchased a courtyard that was plastered, tiled, or painted with images, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, and it is assumed that it was done in a permitted manner. If it then fell, he may not return and build it in its previous form. This indicates that one may not rebuild a building in a manner that is prohibited, even if there was an acquired privilege to maintain it in that manner.

讗讬住讜专讗 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: A case of forbidden matters is different, i.e., in the case of the baraita, he may not rebuild it because it is prohibited for him to do so. In this mishna, the issue is encroachment upon the rights of others, and once he had an acquired privilege to use the projections or balconies, he maintains that right.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗 讬住讜讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讬转讜 讘住讬讚 讜讗诐 注讬专讘 讘讜 讞讜诇 讗讜 转讘谉 诪讜转专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讬专讘 讘讜 讞讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讟专讻住讬讚 讜讗住讜专 转讘谉 诪讜转专

搂 With regard to the ruling of the above-quoted baraita, the Sages taught (Tosefta, Sota 15:9): A person may not plaster his house with plaster, but if he mixed sand or straw into the plaster, which dulls its luster, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he mixed sand into it, it is white cement [terakesid], which is of a higher quality than standard plaster, and it is prohibited, but if he mixed in straw, it is permitted.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻砖讞专讘 讛讘讬转 讘砖谞讬讛 专讘讜 驻专讜砖讬谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 谞讟驻诇 诇讛谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘谞讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬 讗转诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘砖专 讜讗讬谉 讗转诐 砖讜转讬谉 讬讬谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讗讻诇 讘砖专 砖诪诪谞讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜注讻砖讬讜 讘讟诇 谞砖转讛 讬讬谉 砖诪谞住讻讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜注讻砖讬讜 讘讟诇

搂 Having mentioned the prohibition against plastering, which is a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, the Gemara discusses related matters. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:11): When the Temple was destroyed a second time, there was an increase in the number of ascetics among the Jews, whose practice was to not eat meat and to not drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua joined them to discuss their practice. He said to them: My children, for what reason do you not eat meat and do you not drink wine? They said to him: Shall we eat meat, from which offerings are sacrificed upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Shall we drink wine, which is poured as a libation upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist?

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗诐 讻谉 诇讞诐 诇讗 谞讗讻诇 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜 诪谞讞讜转 讗驻砖专 讘驻讬专讜转 驻讬专讜转 诇讗 谞讗讻诇 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇讜 讘讻讜专讬诐 讗驻砖专 讘驻讬专讜转 讗讞专讬诐 诪讬诐 诇讗 谞砖转讛 砖讻讘专 讘讟诇 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 砖转拽讜

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: If so, we will not eat bread either, since the meal-offerings that were offered upon the altar have ceased. They replied: You are correct. It is possible to subsist with produce. He said to them: We will not eat produce either, since the bringing of the first fruits have ceased. They replied: You are correct. We will no longer eat the produce of the seven species from which the first fruits were brought, as it is possible to subsist with other produce. He said to them: If so, we will not drink water, since the water libation has ceased. They were silent, as they realized that they could not survive without water.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讘谞讬 讘讜讗讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇讻诐 砖诇讗 诇讛转讗讘诇 讻诇 注讬拽专 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 谞讙讝专讛 讙讝专讛 讜诇讛转讗讘诇 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讜讘 爪讘讜专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪讗专讛 讗转诐 谞讗专讬诐 讜讗转讬 讗转诐 拽讘注讬诐 讛讙讜讬 讻诇讜

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: My children, come, and I will tell you how we should act. To not mourn at all is impossible, as the decree was already issued and the Temple has been destroyed. But to mourn excessively as you are doing is also impossible, as the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it, as it is written: 鈥淵ou are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation鈥 (Malachi 3:9), indicating that the prophet rebukes the people for neglecting observances only if they were accepted by the whole nation.

讗诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 住讚 讗讚诐 讗转 讘讬转讜 讘住讬讚 讜诪砖讬讬专 讘讜 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻谞讙讚 讛驻转讞

Rabbi Yehoshua continues: Rather, this is what the Sages said: A person may plaster his house with plaster, but he must leave over a small amount in it without plaster to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: And how much is a small amount? Rav Yosef said: One cubit by one cubit. Rav 岣sda said: This should be opposite the entrance, so that it is visible to all.

注讜砖讛 讗讚诐 讻诇 爪专讻讬 住注讜讚讛 讜诪砖讬讬专 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗

Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a person may prepare all that he needs for a meal, but he must leave out a small item to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small item? Rav Pappa said: Something akin to small, fried fish.

注讜砖讛 讗砖讛 讻诇 转讻砖讬讟讬讛 讜诪砖讬讬专转 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘转 爪讚注讗 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗砖讻讞讱 讬专讜砖诇诐 转砖讻讞 讬诪讬谞讬 转讚讘拽 诇砖讜谞讬 诇讞讻讬 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a woman may engage in all of her cosmetic treatments, but she must leave out a small matter to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small matter? Rav said: She does not remove hair from the place on the temple from which women would remove hair. The source for these practices is a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淚f I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember you not; if I set not Jerusalem above my highest joy鈥 (Psalms 137:5鈥6).

诪讗讬 注诇 专讗砖 砖诪讞转讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讝讛 讗驻专 诪拽诇讛 砖讘专讗砖 讞转谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讛讬讻讗 诪谞讞 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 诇砖讜诐 诇讗讘诇讬 爪讬讜谉 诇转转 诇讛诐 驻讗专 转讞转 讗驻专

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Above my highest [rosh] joy? Rav Yitz岣k says: This is referring to the burnt ashes that are customarily placed on the head [rosh] of bridegrooms at the time of their wedding celebrations, to remember the destruction of the Temple. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Where are they placed? Abaye replied: On the place where phylacteries are placed, as it is stated: 鈥淭o appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give to them a garland in place of ashes鈥 (Isaiah 61:3). Since phylacteries are referred to as a garland (see Ezekiel 24:17), it may be inferred from this verse that the ashes were placed in the same place as the phylacteries.

讜讻诇 讛诪转讗讘诇 注诇 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讝讜讻讛 讜专讜讗讛 讘砖诪讞转讛 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪讞讜 讗转 讬专讜砖诇诐 讜讙讜壮

The baraita continues: And anyone who mourns for the destruction of Jerusalem will merit and see its joy, as it is stated: 鈥淩ejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all that mourn for her鈥 (Isaiah 66:10).

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讗诇讬砖注 诪讬讜诐 砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖谞讙讝讜专 注诇 注爪诪谞讜 砖诇讗 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专 讜诇讗 诇砖转讜转 讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 讙讜讝专讬谉 讙讝专讛 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 专讜讘 爪讘讜专 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 讘讛

It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:10) that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, by right, we should decree upon ourselves not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it.

讜诪讬讜诐 砖驻砖讟讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 砖讙讜讝专转 注诇讬谞讜 讙讝讬专讜转 专注讜转 讜拽砖讜转 讜诪讘讟诇转 诪诪谞讜 转讜专讛 讜诪爪讜转 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讞转 讗讜转谞讜 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖讘讜注 讛讘谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇讬砖讜注 讛讘谉 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖谞讙讝讜专 注诇 注爪诪谞讜 砖诇讗 诇讬砖讗 讗砖讛 讜诇讛讜诇讬讚 讘谞讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗 讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 讻诇讛 诪讗诇讬讜

And from the day that the wicked kingdom, i.e., Rome, spread, who decree evil and harsh decrees upon us, and nullify Torah study and the performance of mitzvot for us, and do not allow us to enter the celebration of the first week of a son, i.e., circumcision, and some say: To enter the celebration of the salvation of a firstborn son; by right we should each decree upon ourselves not to marry a woman and not to produce offspring, and it will turn out that the descendants of Abraham our forefather will cease to exist on their own, rather than being forced into a situation where there are sons who are not circumcised.

讗诇讗 讛谞讞 诇讛诐 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜讟讘 砖讬讛讬讜 砖讜讙讙讬谉 讜讗诇 讬讛讬讜 诪讝讬讚讬谉

But concerning a situation such as this, the following principle is applied: Leave the Jews alone and do not impose decrees by which they cannot abide. It is better that they be unwitting sinners, who do not know that what they are doing is improper considering the circumstances, and not be intentional wrongdoers, who marry and procreate despite knowing that they should not.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讞讝拽转 讛讘转讬诐

 

Scroll To Top