Do you have a neighbor like Runya? TB Baba Batra 105

 Runya is a difficult neighbor. We first met him near the end of massekhet Baba Metzia 109a-b. “Runya was the planter of Ravina. He caused a loss, and Ravina removed him from his field. Runya came before Rava and said to him: Let the Master see what Ravina has done to me. Rava said to him: Ravina did well, as you caused him a loss. Runya said to him: But Ravina did not warn me beforehand. How can he force me to leave without prior warning? Rava said to him: In this case it is not necessary to provide a warning. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: With regard to a teacher of children, a planter, a ritual slaughterer, and a bloodletter, and a town scribe who drafts documents on behalf on the local residents, all of these are considered forewarned. Therefore, any loss incurred due to them is deducted from their wages, and they are fined without the need for prior warning. The principle of this matter is: With regard to any loss that is not recoverable they are considered forewarned.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 5 Ravina has to take Runya to court twice; however, this time the court rules in favor of Runya. The Mishnah on the previous daf discusses the liability of the owner of the inner field to pay for the fourth wall. “MISHNA: With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person’s field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Runya has two clashes with Ravina that exemplified the Gemara understanding of the Mishna. Unlike the case in Baba Metzia, here the court rules in favor of Runya.

Case #1 “It is related that a man named Runya had a field that was surrounded by fields belonging to Ravina on all four sides. Ravina built partitions around his fields and said to him: Give me your share of the expense in accordance with what I actually spent when I built the partitions, i.e., half the cost of the partitions. Runya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least your share of the expense in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds. Runya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least the wage of a watchman. But he did not give even this to him.

“One day, Runya was harvesting dates. Ravina said to his sharecropper: Go take a cluster [kibbura] of dates from him. The sharecropper went to bring them, but Runya raised his voice at him in protest, whereupon Ravina said to him: You have revealed that you are pleased with the partitions and the protection that they provide you. Even if it were only a goat that entered your field, wouldn’t the field need safeguarding, to prevent the goat from eating the dates? Runya said to him: If it were only a goat, doesn’t one need merely to chase it away [le’akhluyei]? No partition is required. Ravina said to him: But wouldn’t you need a man to chase the goat away? Pay me then at least the wage of a watchman.

“Ravina came before Rava to adjudicate the matter. Rava said to Runya: Go appease Ravina with what he expressed his willingness to be appeased with, namely, the wage of a watchman. And if not, I will judge you in accordance with the ruling of Rav Huna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and you will be required to pay half the cost of the partition based on what Ravina actually spent on it.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rava’s decision is interesting. He could have imposed what the halakha demanded i.e. half the cost of the partition, but he told Runya he would be wise to accept Ravina’s last offer which was the least expensive option. If Runya still refuses to pay the cost of the watchman, then Rava will make that decision a costly one.

Case #2 “Incidental to that episode, the Gemara relates another encounter between Ravina and Runya. Runya once bought land adjoining property belonging to Ravina. Ravina considered removing him due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. When land is up for sale, the owners of the adjoining fields have the right of first refusal. If one of the neighbors is willing to match the highest price being offered to the seller, that neighbor has the preemptive right to purchase the property, and if somebody else buys it, that buyer can be removed. (See Baba Metzia 108aff for the discussion about the preemptive right to purchase contiguous property is up for sale-דִּינָא דְּבַר מִצְרָא-gg) Since Ravina owned the adjacent property, he thought that he enjoyed the right of first refusal. Rav Safra, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Ravina: People say: Four dinars for a large hide [tzalla], four for a small hide [tzelala]. Since Runya also owned land bordering the desired parcel, you cannot remove him even though his plot of land is smaller than yours.” (Sefaria.org translation) 

Even though Ravina had the right of first refusal Rav Safra sided with Runya because he was poor. He applied the verse “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18)” to Ravina.  Ravina should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.”

How could a man like Herod built the Temple? TB 4

Everybody knows the Hanukkah story. The Maccabees are the heroes who defeated the Syrian Greeks and rededicated the Temple in Jerusalem. The Maccabees assumed the position of the King. Their dynasty is called House of the Hasmoneans (בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי). The Hasmoneans were able to extend their kingdom beyond Judah and Samaria by conquering the Galilee and Idumea. Idumea was situated south east of Beersheva. The Hasmoneans converted to Judaism the people of the Galilee and Idumea by the sword.

Herod was an Jewish Idumean. He was a good general and an astute politician; consequently after Rome conquered the Hasmonean kingdom, Rome made Herod the governor/king of this new Roman province. At times he was a ruthless despot.

 To legitimize his position as leader of the Jewish people he married Marianne, a Hasmonean daughter. To ingratiate himself to the different sectors of his kingdom, he instituted building projects. For Rome he built a great port and called it Caesarea. For the pagans in his kingdom, he built pagan temples. For his Jewish constituents he rebuilt the Temple in Jerusalem. He spared no expense by expanding the Temple Mount and the actual construction of the Temple as the Gemara on today’s daf TB Baba Batra 4 will comment, “The Sages say: One who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen a beautiful building in his life.” (Sefaria.org translation)  Herod accomplish many positive things like expanding the borders of Israel.

Nevertheless, the rabbis had ambivalent feelings about him and did not trust him. Obviously he wasn’t a descendent of the Davidic line. Since Jewish law only allows a born Jew became the king, how could a man who was a convert assume the throne? They looked upon him as a usurper. If David was not permitted to build the First Temple because he had blood on his hands as a great warrior, how could a murderer like Herod builds the Second Temple?

Starting on yesterday’s daf and continuing on today’s daf, we learn the rabbinic answers to these questions which is different from modern historians.

“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.

“It is related that Herod preserved the girl’s 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’s daughter.

“Herod said to himself: Who expounds the verse: “One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you” (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.

“Herod placed a garland made of porcupine hide on Bava ben Buta’s head, which pricked his eyes out. One day Herod came and sat before him without identifying himself in order to test him. He, Herod, said: See, Master, what this evil slave Herod is doing. Bava ben Buta said to him: What should I do to him? Herod said to him: The Master should curse him. Bava ben Buta said to him: But it is written: “Do not curse the king, not even in your thoughts” (Ecclesiastes 10:20). Herod said to him: He is not a king, since he rules illegally. Bava ben Buta said to him: And even if he were merely a rich man I would not curse him, as it is written: “And do not curse a rich person in your bedchamber” (Ecclesiastes 10:20). And even were he only a leader I would not curse him, as it is written: “And you shall not curse a leader among your people” (Exodus 22:27).

“Herod said to him: That halakha stated with regard to “a leader among your people,” that is, to a fit Jew who acts as a member of your people, i.e., in accordance with Torah law, and this one does not do the deeds of your people. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, I am afraid of him. Herod said to him: There is nobody who will go and tell him, since you and I are sitting here alone. Bava ben Buta said to him: Nevertheless, it is written: “For a bird of the sky shall carry the sound, and that which has wings shall tell the matter” (Ecclesiastes 10:20).

“Herod said to him: I am he. Had I known that the Sages were so cautious I would not have killed them. Now, what is that man’s remedy, i.e., what can I do to repent for my sinful actions? Bava ben Buta said to him: He who extinguished the light of the world by killing the Torah Sages, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23), should go and occupy himself with the light of the world, the Temple, as it is written with regard to the Temple: “And all the nations shall flow [venaharu] unto it” (Isaiah 2:2), the word venaharu alluding to light [nehora]. There are those who say that this is what he said to him: He who blinded the eye of the world, as it is written in reference to the Sages: “And if it be committed through ignorance by the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24), should go and occupy himself with the eye of the world, the Temple, as it is written: “I will desecrate my Temple, the pride of your strength, the delight of your eyes” (Ezekiel 24:21).

“Herod said to him: I am afraid of the Roman government, that they will not permit me to make changes in the Temple. Bava ben Buta said to him: Send a messenger who will travel there for a year, and remain there for another year, and take yet another year to return. In the meantime, you can demolish the Temple and rebuild it. He did so. Eventually, they sent a message to Herod from Rome: If you have not yet demolished it, do not demolish it; and if you have already demolished it, do not rebuild it; and if you have demolished it and already rebuilt it, you shall be counted among those who act wickedly, seeking counsel only after they have already acted. Even if you are armed and in command of a military force, your book, i.e., your genealogical record, is here. You are neither a king [reikha] nor the son of a king, but rather Herod the slave who has made himself a freeman [kelonya].

“The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the word reikha? It denotes royalty, as it is written: “I am today a tender [rakh] and anointed king” (II Samuel 3:39). And if you wish, say that the meaning of the word is learned from here, from the term describing Joseph after he was appointed viceroy to the king: “And they cried before him, Avrekh” (Genesis 41:43).

“The Sages say: One who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen a beautiful building in his life. The Gemara asks: With what did he build it? Rabba said: With stones of white and green marble [umarmara]. There are those who say that he built it with stones of blue, white, and green marble. Alternate rows of stones sent out an edge a bit and drew in an edge a bit, so that they would better receive and hold the plaster. He considered covering it with gold, but the Rabbis said to him: Leave it, and do not cover it, since it is more beautiful this way, as it looks like the waves of the sea.

“The Gemara asks: And how did Bava ben Buta do this, i.e., give advice to Herod the wicked? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says, and some say it was Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says: For what reason was Daniel punished? Because he offered advice to Nebuchadnezzar, as after sharing a harsh prophecy with him, it is stated: “Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you, redeem your sins with charity and your iniquities with graciousness to the poor, that there may be a lengthening of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:24). And it is written: “All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar” (Daniel 4:25). And it is written: “And at the end of twelve months” (Daniel 4:26). Only after a year was the prophecy fulfilled but not before that, apparently because Nebuchadnezzar heeded Daniel’s advice.

“The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that a slave like Herod is different since he is obligated in the mitzvot, and therefore Bava ben Buta had to help him repent. And if you wish, say the Temple is different, as without the help of the government it would not have been built.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

 

So you want to replace the old synagogue with the new one TB Baba Batra 3

 Since we began our study of Baba Batra with a discussion about building a wall dividing a common courtyard, today’s daf TB Baba Batra 3 discusses the concerns about building a new synagogue to replace an old one. This discussion is as relevant for us as it was for the rabbis. Sometimes Jewish communities have moved and need to build a new synagogue and sometimes a synagogue needs major renovation repairs in the sanctuary. One thing is certain, a place for a minyan must be provided in the meantime.

“Rav Ḥisda 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.

“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. (I don’t know how true it still is, but it was true during the 20^th century. We see this phenomena in the Orthodox community here in New York. We could call their New York City synagogues their winter shuls and the synagogues they build in their bungalow colonies in Catskills their summer shuls.-gg)

“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.

“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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Pidyon Shevuim (פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים), the redemption of captives, as always been a priority of the Jewish community. “A Jewish religious duty to free a fellow Jew who has been captured by slave dealers, robbers, or imprisoned unjustly. The duty is considered an important commandment in Jewish law and takes precedence over other mitzvahs, such as helping the poor. The release of the captive is often achieved through reconciliation, ransom negotiations, or relentless pursuit. The duty is based on the idea that captivity is similar to famine, drought, or exposure, and that the captive is in mortal danger. Someone who doesn't redeem a captive violates several Torah prohibitions, including "Do not harden your heart or close your hand" (Deuteronomy 15:7), "Do not stand by when the blood of your neighbor is in danger" (Leviticus 19:16), and "He shall not oppress him with exhausting work in your presence" (ibid. 25:53).” (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+redemption+of+captives&oq=The+redemption+of+captives&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRiPAtIBCTY0ODFqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s)

We can now better understand why Israel not only fights to destroy Hamas as the threat to the Jewish state, but also the emphasis of freeing the hostages. This mitzvah takes precedence over almost 

all others.

Our Gemara continues provides an exemption when one may raze an old synagogue before building a new one. Public safety is a real concern. “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 Meḥasya 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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

With God’s help you too can overcome giants #Shelaklekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

After being encamped near Mt. Sinai for two years, the people of Israel were on the verge of entering Canaan—the land God had promised them. God told them to send twelve spies to assess the land and the people living there. When the spies saw the strength of the Canaanites and the size of their cities, ten of them said, “We can’t!” Two said, “We can!”

What made the difference?

When the ten compared the giants with themselves and the giants loomed large, the two—Caleb and Joshua—compared the giants with God, and the giants were cut down to size. “The Lord is with us,” they said. “Do not be afraid of them” (Num. 14:9).

Unbelief never lets us get beyond the difficulties—the impregnable cities and the impossible giants. It preoccupies itself with them, brooding over them, pitting them against mere human resources.

Faith, on the other hand, though it never minimizes the dangers and difficulties of any circumstance, looks away from them to God and counts on His invisible presence and power.

What are your “giants”? A habit you cannot break? A temptation you cannot resist? A difficult marriage? A drug-abusing son or daughter (grandson or granddaughter)? If we compare ourselves with our difficulties, we will always be overwhelmed. Faith looks away from the greatness of the undertaking to the greatness of an ever-present, all-powerful God who stands ready to strengthen you, who will help you, and who will sustain you with His power to meet any challenge.

 

Is privacy a legal claim? TB Baba Batra 22

Today we began Baba Batra, literally The Last Gate. Baba Kama is the First Gate and Baba Metzia is the Middle Gate. At one time all three massekhtot were one gigantic massekhet called Massekhet Nezikin, the tractate of damages. Eventually this one large tractate was divided into three tractates, each containing 10 chapters.

Baba Batra deals primarily with the laws concerning real estate and is the largest massekhet of all, containing 176 pages. Rashi’s commentary is always terse and concise and he only comments on the first three chapters. Rashbam, Rashi’s grandson, comments on the last seven chapters. Rashbam’s commentary is more like the tosefot, i.e. verbose and long. Consequently, even though there are more dappim in this massekhet, each daf is shorter than usual.

Daf TB Baba Batra 2 begins to litigate whether privacy is a legal claim or not (הֶיזֵּק רְאִיָּה שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק אוֹ לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק). The Mishnah describes cases about a wall in the middle of the courtyard owned by partners. One case is:  “in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition.” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara concludes this sugiya “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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara brings six cases from different mishnayot and baraitot to test whether privacy is really a legal claim. In each of the cases the Gemara sees a qualitative difference in each case making one think that privacy isn’t a legal claim.

“The Gemara asks: And is damage caused by sight in fact not called damage? The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the proofs, which follow, that challenge this assumption: Garden, wall, compels, and they divide, windows, as Rav Naḥman.

1.    “The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which the mishna teaches: And similarly with regard to a garden, in a place where it is customary to build a partition in the middle of a garden jointly owned by two people, and one of them wishes to build such a partition, the court obligates his neighbor to join in building the partition. This indicates that invading one’s privacy by looking at him while he is in his private domain is called damage.

“The Gemara answers: A garden is different with regard to the halakha governing invasion of privacy, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abba, as Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to stand in another’s field and look at his crop while the grain is standing, because he casts an evil eye upon it and thereby causes him damage, and the same is true for a garden. Since the issue in this case is damage resulting from the evil eye, no proof can be brought with regard to the matter of damage caused by sight.

2.    “The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches: And similarly with regard to a garden, which suggests that a garden and a courtyard are governed by the same rationale. The Gemara answers: The term: And similarly, is stated not with regard to the reason for the obligation to construct a wall, but with regard to the halakha concerning non-chiseled and chiseled stones. A partition in a garden is built with the same materials used for the building of a wall in a courtyard, in accordance with regional custom 

3.    “The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (5a): In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him again up to a height of four cubits. This indicates that damage caused by sight is called damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The case of a wall that fell is different; since a wall had already stood there, the court compels the owners to rebuild it as it was.

“The Gemara expresses its astonishment: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it at all? The mishna is clearly referring to a wall that has fallen, which means that the joint owners have already agreed in the past to build a partition between their respective portions. The Gemara answers: He who asked the question maintains that the joint owners can be compelled to build a wall even in a case where a wall had not stood there before, to prevent any invasion of privacy. And the mishna does not address the case of a wall that fell to teach that only in such a case is there an obligation to build a wall. Rather, it was necessary to teach the latter clause, which states that even in a case where there had previously been a high wall the court does not obligate him to rebuild it higher than four cubits, because once there is a wall of four cubits there is no further invasion of privacy.

4.    “The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional proof that damage caused by sight is called damage, from what is taught in a mishna (7b): The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard, so that the courtyard not be open to the eyes of those standing in the public domain. Learn from it that damage caused by sight is called damage. The Gemara answers: This is not a proof to the halakha in the case of two neighbors, as the damage of being exposed to the gaze of the general public, which has unimpeded sight of what is happening in the courtyard, is different and certainly called damage.

“The Gemara asks: And is exposure to the sight of an individual not considered damage? Come and hear a proof that it is called damage from what is taught in a mishna (11a): One divides a courtyard at the request of one of the co-owners only if its area is sufficient so that there will be in it four by four cubits for this one and four by four cubits for that one, that is, the same minimal dimensions for each of the co-owners. This means that if there is enough for this one and enough for that one, they do divide the courtyard at the request of one of the owners. What, is it not so that the courtyard must be divided with a wall that will prevent one neighbor from seeing the other? The Gemara answers: No, perhaps it is divided with a mere partition of pegs through which one can still see

5.    “The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof that damage caused by sight is called damage from what is taught in a mishna (22a): One who desires to build a wall opposite the windows of a neighbor’s house must distance the wall four cubits from the windows, whether above, below, or opposite. And a baraita is taught with regard to that mishna: Concerning the requirement of a distance above, the wall must be high enough so that one cannot peer into the window and see into the window; concerning the requirement of a distance below, the wall must be low so that he will not be able to stand on top of it and see into the window; and concerning the requirement of a distance opposite, one must distance the wall from the windows so that it will not darken his neighbor’s house by blocking the light that enters the house through the window. This indicates that there is a concern about the damage caused by exposure to the gaze of others.

“The Gemara rejects this argument: The damage of being exposed to the sight of others while in one’s own house is different, as people engage in activities in their homes that they do not want others to see. By contrast, a courtyard is out in the open and it is possible that the residents are indifferent to being observed.

6.    “The Gemara challenges this distinction: Come and hear a proof, as Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: If one’s roof is adjacent to another’s courtyard, he must make a parapet around the roof four cubits high so that he will not be able to see into his neighbor’s courtyard. This indicates that the damage of being exposed to the eyes of others even in a courtyard is called damage. The Gemara refutes this proof: The situation is different there, as the owner of the courtyard can say to the owner of the roof: I make use of my courtyard on a regular basis. You, by contrast, do not make use of your roof on a regular basis, but only infrequently. Consequently, I do not know when you will go up to the roof, so that I can hide from you at that time and avoid coming under your gaze.” (Sefaria.org translation.

    On this issue of privacy, our daf leaves us hanging. As we continue our journey through this chapter and the rest of the massekhet, we shall be able to decide conclusive whether or not privacy is a legal claim.

 

The importance of compromise

Today we finish massekhet Baba Metzia with daf 119. Rabbi Shimon has a different answer how to deal with a vegetable growing between two terrace gardens. “Rabbi Shimon said: Any vegetables that the owner of the upper garden can stretch out his hand and take, those vegetables are his, and the rest belong to the owner of the lower garden.” (daf 118b, Sefaria.org translation)

Today’s daf explains exactly how far the upper gardener may stretch out his and to pick the produce. “The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon said: Any vegetables that the owner of the upper garden can stretch out his hand and take, those vegetables are his, and the rest belong to the owner of the lower garden. In the school of Rabbi Yannai they say: And this is only so provided that he does not force himself (יֵאָנֵס), but simply stretches out his hand in the usual manner.” (Sefaria.org translation) Some commentators explain the Hebrew word יֵאָנֵס means he should not stretch out his arm so far that he exited causes an accident and falls off the terrace.

Today’s daf introduces an amora, Efrayim the scribe, who only appears on this daf. “Efrayim the scribe, a student of Reish Lakish, says in the name of Reish Lakish: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.”

According to the Bavli, if the upper gardener has a longer reach he can harvest more vegetables than the lower gardener. It is interesting to note that the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem) Talmud records a different version of what Efrayim the scribe said, “What shall one do? Ephraim in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they shall split.” (Sefaria.org translation) Here both farmers share of the crop equally.

This conclusion echoes the very beginning of our massekhet. “MISHNA: If two people came to court holding a garment, and this one, the first litigant, says: I found it, and that one, the second litigant, says: I found it; this one says: All of it is mine, and that one says: All of it is mine; how does the court adjudicate this case? This one takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than half of it, and that one takes an oath that he does not have ownership of less than half of it, and they divide it”. (daf 2a, Sefaria.org translation)

All throughout our study of Baba Kama and Baba Metzia we have dealt with real-life situations that we can identify with. Time and time again, our sages have taught us the importance of compromise when dealing with a fellow human beings. They also encourage us to go beyond the letter of the law and do what’s right in God’s sight. That’s our aspiration.

These real-life situations will continue as we study Baba Batra tomorrow!

Destroy or live TB Baba Metzia 118

 Daf TB Baba Metzia 118 is the penultimate folio of our massekhet. Terrace gardening always has been an effective way of maximizing cultivating The Land of Israel. The last Mishna of our massekhet deals with a dispute between two different terrace farmers.

“In the case of two gardens that were located one above the other, i.e., a garden on a plateau that borders another garden below, and vegetables grew in-between, out of the wall of soil resulting from the difference in height between the two gardens, Rabbi Meir says: These vegetables belong to the owner of the upper garden. Rabbi Yehuda says: They belong to the owner of the lower one. Rabbi Meir said in explanation of his ruling: If the owner of the upper garden would want to dig and take his dirt and does so, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him. In response, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the owner of the lower garden would want to fill his garden with dirt and does so, thereby raising its level, no vegetables would grow here, as that wall made of soil would not exist. The vegetables therefore belong to him.

“Rabbi Meir said: Since the two of them can object to each other, as they each have the ability to prevent the vegetable growth, nothing can be decided based on such considerations. Instead, the court considers from where this vegetable lives and derives nourishment, whether from above or from below.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Meir brilliantly shifts the focus of his argument. Originally both sages base their argument on the destruction of either the top or bottom garden. Rabbi Meir still holds that the vegetables that grew out of the wall in between the gardens still belongs to the gardener; however, instead of using the language of destruction he emphasizes where the vegetable derives nourishment to live.

The author Mishnat Eretz Yisrael writes that there is a previous unwritten agreement between the two gardeners to preserve the terrace and work their land appropriately. Consequently, the claim that either could destroy the wall separating the two garden isn’t correct. Where the vegetable plant derives is nourishment i.e. its life determines who owns it. All plants search for the closest soil to draw is nourishment which in this case is obviously the upper garden.

Rabbi Meir teaches us that we’re not brought into this world to destroy and hate, but rather to build, to love, and to seek peace.

For all those who can read Hebrew here is the original text of Mishnat Eretz Yisrael.

אמר רבי מאיר וכי מאחר ששניהם יכולים למחות זה על ידי זה – העליון יכול לדרוש מהתחתון לא למלאות את גינתו והתחתון יכול למנוע את הורדת המפלס של המדרגה שמעליו. על מהותו המדויקת של המשפט עמדנו בראשית המשנה. בין שני הצדדים קיים הסכם שותפות קדמון, בלתי כתוב, המחייב כל אחד לשמור על המדרגות ולעבדן כהלכה. אם כן יש כאן הסכם שיתוף פעולה, ולכן הטיעונים הקודמים שהובאו כאילו כל אחד רשאי לבטל את הקיר המפריד אינם נכונים. אם כן מה הטיעון הקובע? מנין ירק זה חייא – או חייה, כלומר חי; צריך לבחון מהיכן הירק שואב את חיותו, להיכן שורשיו נוטים, למעלה או למטה. בדרך כלל השורשים יחפשו את הקרקע הקרובה, וממילא זו הגינה של העליון. רבי מאיר נסוג אפוא מהטיעון שלו, אך מציע טיעון

אחר להגנת עמדתו.

Who is responsible for water damage repairs? TB Baba Metzia 117

Most of the original houses in my neighborhood had only one story and perhaps a basement. Now the new owners tear down these houses and build a two or three-story home and rent out floors the owners don’t live in as apartments. Who is responsible for water damage repairs is a subject on daf TB Baba Metzia 117.

“The Gemara relates: An incident occurred with these two people who were residing in the same house, one in the upper story, and the other one in the lower story. The plaster of the floor of the upper story broke, so that when the resident of the upper apartment would wash with water, it would run down and cause damage to the lower story. The question was: Who must repair the ceiling? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: The upper resident repairs it, and Rabbi Elai says in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosei: The lower resident repairs it. The Gemara comments: And the following verse can serve as a mnemonic device to remember who issued which ruling: “And Joseph was brought down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Yosei, indicated by Joseph, is the Sage who maintains that the owner of the lower story, indicated by: Brought down, must repair the ceiling.

“The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Elai disagree with regard to the matter subject to dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis in the mishna? The explanation of the dispute would then be as follows: According to the one who says that the upper resident repairs it, he holds that the responsibility is on the one potentially responsible for the damage to distance himself from the one whose property is potentially damaged. This accounts for the opinion of Rabbi Yosei in the mishna, who holds that the resident of the upper story must provide the plaster, because his water is clearly causing damage below. And the one who says that the lower resident repairs it, he holds like the Rabbis, who say that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage.”(Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara at the very end of this sugiya provides an alternative understanding of the disagreement between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis in the mishna. “The Gemara asks: And with regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis of the mishna here disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the strength of a ceiling. The Rabbis hold that the function of the plaster is to strengthen the ceiling, and strengthening the ceiling is the obligation of the lower resident, as he is required to strengthen it. And Rabbi Yosei holds that the function of the plaster is to level out any holes, so that the surface of the ceiling will be flat, and leveling out holes it is the obligation of the upper resident, as he is required to level them out.” (Sefaria.org translation) In other words, they are disagreeing about the engineering benefit of the plaster, stability versus smoothness.

“The Gemara challenges the above conclusion: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Ashi say: When I was in the school of Rav Kahana we would say that Rabbi Yosei concedes in a case of his arrows. Although Rabbi Yosei holds that the responsibility is on the one whose property is potentially damaged to distance himself from the one potentially responsible for the damage, that is only if the one causing the damage is not performing a direct action that is causing the damage, as in the case of the tree and the pit. But if he is performing an action that causes damage from a distance, as in this case, where the water he pours damages the resident of the lower story, he is like someone shooting arrows, who is certainly obligated to ensure that he does not cause any damage.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I don’t know who’s responsible to repair the water damage in the McMansions in my neighborhood. If we were deciding according to Jewish law, then if the water from above immediately flows down to the first floor and does damage, the person living on the second floor is obligated to pay for the damage. If the water first collects on the second floor and then slowly seeps through the plaster, the owner on the first floor pays for the damage and repair the ceiling/floor.

  

The limitation of the mego (מִיגוֹ) TB Baba Metzia 116

The Talmudic law concept mego (מִיגוֹ) is a reason that a claim that would otherwise be rejected by a Jewish civil court should be accepted based on the fact that the litigant could have prevailed in the case based on a different claim were he disposed to lie. Even though the last sugiyah in the ninth chapter of our massekhet on  TB Baba Metzia 116 never explicitly uses the term mego, the analysis of two cases clarifies the extent a mego  is effective.

Ҥ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who took as collateral a slaughtering knife from another. He came before Abaye to ask him what to do. Abaye said to him: Go and return it, as it is a vessel used in the preparation of food, and it is therefore forbidden to take as collateral, and go stand in judgment, i.e., litigate with the debtor in court, concerning how much money he owes you. Rava said: He does not have to stand in judgment for this. Since the knife is in his possession, he can claim the amount of the debt up to its value.

“The Gemara asks: And does Abaye not accept that reasoning, that one who seized an item belonging to a debtor may claim the sum owed to him up to the value of the item? In what way is it different from the incident involving those goats that ate peeled barley [ḥushla] in Neharde’a, and the owner of the peeled barley came and seized the goats and claimed that their owner was indebted to him for a large amount, and Shmuel’s father, who acted as a judge in this case, said that he can claim a sum up to their value?

“The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two cases: There, a goat is an item that is not usually lent out or rented. Consequently, the one who possesses them has a presumptive right of ownership upon which he can base his claim. Conversely, here, the slaughtering knife is an item that is usually lent out or rented. Therefore, he is not deemed credible without proof that it is his merely by virtue of its being in his possession. The Gemara supports this distinction: As Rav Huna bar Avin sent the following ruling: In a case of items that are usually lent out or rented, and one in possession of them says: They were acquired by me, he is not deemed credible by this claim alone. He must provide further proof, as he might have borrowed or rented them.

“The Gemara asks: And does Rava not accept this reasoning? But didn’t Rava himself remove scissors used for wool and a scroll of aggada from the possession of orphans as items that are usually lent out or rented? The Gemara answers: Rava could have said to you: With regard to this slaughtering knife too, since it is likely to be damaged, people are particular and do not lend it out. Therefore, it is not considered an item that is typically lent out, and the one in possession of it can claim the money owed to him up to the value of the knife.” (Sefaria.org translation)

This analysis of the two cases clarifies the extent a mego is effective. Mego only works when the argument is plausible. For example people didn’t lend out goats. If one has somebody else’s goals, he could claim he bought them. Since the owner of the field didn’t use this plausible possibility, the mego works. The same argument works for Rava when it comes to the shokhet’s knife.

Too bad Suleiman the magnificent didn’t learn daf TB Baba Metzia 114.

The seven gates of Jerusalem’s old city has a history unto itself. After successive conquests, the walls of Jerusalem were in disrepair. To protect Jerusalem from a Crusaders invasion, the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent commissioned the rebuilding of those walls. Legend has it that one night he had a nightmare warning him that he did not rebuild the walls of Jerusalem he would be torn to pieces by lions. The Lions’ gate stand as proof that he fulfilled the dream’s mission of rebuilding the walls around Jerusalem.

“The current walls of the Old City of Jerusalem were built between 1533 and 1540 on orders of Ottoman Sultan , who provided them with seven gates: six new gates were built, and the older and previously sealed Golden Gate was reopened (only to be re-sealed again after a few years). The seven gates at the time of Suleiman were, clockwise and by their current name: the Damascus Gate; Herod's Gate; Lions' Gate; Golden Gate; Dung Gate; Zion Gate; and Jaffa Gate.

“With the re-sealing of the Golden Gate by Suleiman, the number of operational gates was only brought back to seven in 1887, with the addition of the New Gate.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_of_the_Old_City_of_Jerusalem)

When the Israeli Defense Force was about to liberate the city of Jerusalem, the officers in charge could either enter through the Dung Gate or the Lions’ Gate. Even though tactically the Dung Gate was the better choice, they chose the Lions’ Gate as the more appropriate one to liberate the city of Jerusalem.

Why was the Golden Gate sealed and a Muslim cemetery built in front of it? To prevent the Messiah from walking, through that gate, he had it sealed and later a cemetery planted in front of. According to tradition Elijah was a kohen and everybody knows that a kohen is forbidden to enter a cemetery and become ritually unready.

The flaw in this plan is revealed on daf TB Baba Metzia 114b. The story is told that Rabba bar Avuh found Elijah standing in a graveyard of gentiles and asked him a series of questions. Finally “The amora proceeded to ask Elijah a different question and said to him: Is not the Master a priest? What is the reason that the Master is standing in a cemetery? Elijah said to him: Has the Master not studied the mishnaic order of Teharot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure….” (Sefaria.org translation)

The sealed-up gate might delay the Messiah from entering Jerusalem, but not the Muslim cemetery.

 

 

 

How to stop complaining #Beha’alotekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

When Max Lucado participated in a half-Ironman triathlon, he experienced the negative power of complaint. He said, “After the 1.2-mile swim and the 56-mile bike ride, I didn’t have much energy left for the 13.1-mile run. Neither did the fellow jogging next to me. He said, ‘This stinks. This race is the dumbest decision I’ve ever made.’ I said, ‘Goodbye.’ ” Max knew that if he listened too long, he would start agreeing with him. So he said goodbye and kept running.

Among the Israelites, too many people listened too long to complaints and began to agree with them. This displeased God, and for good reason. God had delivered the Israelites from slavery, and agreed to live in their midst, but they still complained. In this week’s Torah portion, B’ha-alotkha, the Israelites were kvetching to Moses again.  Beyond the hardship of the desert, they were dissatisfied with God’s provision of manna. In their complaint, Israel forgot that the manna was a gift to them from God’s loving hand (Num. 11:6). Because complaining poisons the heart with ingratitude and can be a contagion, God had to judge it.

Each day, focus on what we have and not what is lacking.  Be grateful for God’s gifts and blessings we still can enjoy and not what has been taken from us.  This is the surest way to say “goodbye” to complaining and ingratitude.

  

Two beds are better than one TB Baba Metzia 113

The last third of chapter 9 in our massekhet deals with the laws of a collateral, mashkon-מַשְׁכּוֹן. Only a court can authorize an item as collateral. Not everything can be used as collateral. A “baraita continues: The agent of the court may not take as collateral from the debtor items that people use in the preparation of food, as the debtor needs such items, and the Torah explicitly forbade their removal. And the agent gives, i.e., leaves behind, a bed, and a second bed, and blankets, for a wealthy person; and a bed, and a second bed, and a mat, for a poor person. These items are left for the debtor himself, but not for his wife, and not for his sons or for his daughters, as the Torah did not obligate the creditor to care for the debtor’s family.” (daf TB Baba Metzia 113, Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara asks the logical question why does a wealthy person have two beds? He can only sleep in one of them at a time. “The Gemara asks: Why does the debtor need two beds when one should suffice for all his needs? The Gemara answers: One is for him to eat on it and one is for him to sleep on it, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. As Shmuel, who was a doctor by profession, said: With regard to all items that cause illness, I know their cure, apart from these three: One who eats a bitter date [ahina] on an empty stomach, one who girds a wet linen belt around his loins, and one who eats bread and does not walk four cubits afterward. It is for this reason that one requires two beds, so that he should not eat and sleep on the same bed without having to walk a little distance between them after his meal.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We have to remember that eating sitting up straight at a table is a modern phenomenon. Back in Talmudic times people ate reclining with a “TV tray” laden with food in from them. We make mention of this custom at every Passover Seder when the youngest child recites “שֶבְכָל הַלֵילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין בֵין יוֹשְבִין וּבֵין מְסֻבִין  הַלַיְלָה הַזֶה כֻלָנוּ מְסֻבִין.-And that every other night some sit to eat and some recline,
but tonight we are all reclining?”

A wealthy person needed a second bed that was four cubits away from the first in order to walk off the meal and not get sick. Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street teaches a second reason why one should not sleep in the same bed he eats in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRZrOCIzPt8

 

Is breakfast the most important meal of the day? TB Baba Metzia 107

Is breakfast the most important meal of the day? The Gemara on daf TB Baba Metzia 107 certainly think so.

Ҥ The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught that thirteen matters of praise were stated with regard to a meal of bread eaten in the morning: It protects the diner from the heat, and from the cold, and from the winds, and from the harmful spirits; and it makes the simple wise, and one who consumes it will be victorious in judgment, he will merit to learn Torah and to teach it, and his statements are heard, and his study will remain in his possession.

“In addition, his flesh does not generate excess sweat, and he engages in intercourse with his wife at the proper time, and he does not lust for another woman, and this meal is so advantageous that it even kills any louse in his intestines. And some say it even removes jealousy and brings in love. Since he is completely healthy, he is not inclined to be angered by others.

“In relation to the above baraita, Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that people say derived: Sixty runners ran but could not catch the man who ate in the morning, and the Sages likewise said: Arise early and eat, in the summer due to the sun and in the winter due to the cold, so that one’s body should have the strength to withstand the climate.

“Rava bar Mari said to him: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “They shall not hunger nor thirst, neither shall the heat nor sun smite them” (Isaiah 49:10). Why will the heat and the sun not smite them? Since they shall not hunger nor thirst, as they rose early to eat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

In reality, is breakfast the most important meal of all? Certainly we were taught that it was, but it ain’t necessarily so. Breakfast may not be the most important meal, but it is important. “Most of the claimed benefits of eating breakfast are primarily derived from observational studies, which cannot prove cause and effect…According to one 2018 observational studyTrusted Source, those who frequently eat breakfast often pay more attention to their overall nutrient intake, regularly participate in physical activity, and adequately manage stress.

“Conversely, those who skip breakfast tend to have unhealthier lifestyle habits such as frequent smoking and drinking. They also tend to have diets higher in fat, cholesterol, and calories than habitual breakfast eaters.

“These findings suggest that lifestyle habits may contribute to the overall health status of breakfast eaters, not eating breakfast…

“The bottom line

“Although research suggests that breakfast may not be the most important meal of the day, it is still important. It serves as an opportunity to help you fuel your day and provide key nutrients that your body needs.

“If you choose not to eat breakfast, there is no reason to feel guilty, and there is not much evidence that it can negatively impact your health.

“What is important is to eat in a way that works best for you while living a healthy lifestyle and ensuring your nutrient needs are being met during your other meals.

“If you are finding it challenging to meet your nutritional needs, consider speaking with a registered dietitian who can help you navigate through any questions you may have.” (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-breakfast-really-the-most-important-meal-of-the-day#The-bottom-line)

The rabbis were wrong. Just bread and water is not the breakfast of champions. I recommend reading the rest of the article because it gives good sound nutritional advice.