Bava Batra 172

How do you really know a person?

If there are two people who were living in one city, one named Yosef ben Shimon and the other also named Yosef ben Shimon, one cannot present a promissory note against the other, as the purported debtor can claim: On the contrary, it is you who owed me money; you repaid me and I returned this note to you upon payment. Nor can another, third person, present a promissory note against either of them, as each one can claim: It is not I but the other Yosef ben Shimon who owes you money. If a document is found among one’s documents stating: The promissory note against Yosef ben Shimon is repaid, and both men named Yosef ben Shimon owed this man money, the promissory notes of both of them are considered repaid, as it cannot be determined which debt was repaid and which is outstanding.

So, two guys in the same town with the same name. It seems you can’t do business with either of them because the other can claim THEY are the Shimon on that document. So, what do you do?

What should two people with the same name in a single city do in order to conduct their business? They should triple their names by writing three generations: Yosef ben Shimon ben so-and-so. And if they have identical triple names, i.e., not only their fathers but their grandfathers had identical names, they should write an indication as to which one is referred to, such as: The short Yosef ben Shimon or the dark Yosef ben Shimon. And if they have identical indications, they should write: Yosef ben Shimon the priest, if one of them is a priest.

I love this. How do you know who you are talking to? Well, who is their family? Where do they come from? How would you describe them? What is their manner? How do they spend their time?

It reminds me of the Zelda poem (Ukrainian poet originally written in Hebrew):

EACH OF US HAS A NAME

Each of us has a name
given by God
and given by our parents

Each of us has a name
given by our stature and our smile
and given by what we wear

Each of us has a name
given by the mountains
and given by our walls

Each of us has a name
given by the stars
and given by our neighbors

Each of us has a name
given by our sins
and given by our longing

Each of us has a name
given by our enemies
and given by our love

Each of us has a name
given by our celebrations
and given by our work

Each of us has a name
given by the seasons
and given by our blindness

Each of us has a name
given by the sea
and given by
our death.

Bava Batra 171

Today’s gem: We can greatly admire someone, think they are smarter than us, more important than us, and totally disagree with them

This is like that case where Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, and said to Rabbi Abba: Give me my money. Rabbi Abba said to him: First give me my promissory note, and then take your money. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said to him: I lost your promissory note; instead, I will write a receipt for you. Rabbi Abba said to him: Isn’t there the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say that the halakha is that one does not write a receipt? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, the judge, thereupon said: Who will give us some of the dust of Rav and Shmuel, and I will place it on my eyes, so highly do I regard them. Nevertheless, isn’t there the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, who both say that one writes a receipt?

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi looks up to Rav and Shmuel, thinks he is so beneath them . . . yet, he disagrees with their ruling and goes his own way.

It’s lovely really.

Bava Batra 170

On the daf today a rabbi, again, is held to his own standards…and doesn’t like it.

It is like this case where Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. The case came before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. Rabbi Abba said: I already repaid you the debt in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said to Rabbi Abba: The witnesses you have named, so-and-so and so-and-so, must come and testifythat they saw you repay the loan. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: If they do not come, am I not deemed credible to say that I repaid the loan? But don’t we maintain that with regard to one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the debtor need not repay him in the presence of witnesses, as he is deemed credible to say he repaid the debt even with no supporting testimony? Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said to Rabbi Abba: With regard to thisissue, I hold like the halakha said by the Master, i.e., you yourself

The message? Don’t be a hypocrite. Don’t expect out of others what you won’t do yourself.

Bava Batra 169

I really love when the punishment fits the crime, as it does on today’s daf.

There was a certain woman who gave money to a certain man to act as her agent and purchase land for her. The agent went and purchased land for her, but he conducted the purchase in such a way that it was without a guarantee. The woman wanted to take action against the agent and came before Rav Naḥman to ask what recourse she had. Rav Naḥman said to the agent: The principle with regard to an agent is that if he acts to the detriment of the one who appointed him, the one who appointed him can say: I sent you to act for my benefit and not to my detriment. Therefore, the entire agency is null and void, thereby negating the purchase. Nevertheless, you agreed to purchase the land without a guarantee. Therefore, go yourself and purchase the land from him without a guarantee, and then sell it to this woman with a guarantee that you will reimburse her in the event the land is repossessed.

I love this. The woman wanted the land WITH a guarantee. The man she hired purchased it without the guarantee. So, what’s the punishment? Rav Nahman tells the man that he now has to serve as her guarantee. If he thought she didn’t need it, fine, he now takes on the risk! If he gets upset, good, now he knows how she feels.

It’s a bit like the golden rule (Hillel’s version) is being implemented: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That’s the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary. Go and learn.

Bava Batra 168

Yet another daf which shows that the law has been reformed! This time, in protection of women who want a divorce.

The mishna teaches that the husband gives the scribe’s wages for writing a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: As the verse states: “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter in her, he shall write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand” (Deuteronomy 24:1). It is therefore the husband’s responsibility to have the bill of divorce written. The Gemara adds: But today, the reason that we do not do so, but instead have the woman pay the scribe, is that the Sages placed the burden upon the woman, so that the husband should not delay the divorce by refusing to pay the scribe.

So, according to the Torah, is appears a man is supposed to pay for the divorce. However, the law was changed so that is a man refuses to pay or drags his feet, the woman can pay to speed the matter along.

The Code of Jewish Law, Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 120:1, makes this reform clear:

The get–it must be written by the husband or his agent. And even if his agent writes it, it must belong to the husband. Therefore they had the custom that when the husband is around, the scribe gives him the parchment and the ink. And there are those who say so too the quill and the other writing instruments (Hagahot Asheri, ch. 2, and Modercai, Laws of Gittin) as a gift before the writing. And the husband pays the wages. And because of the enactment [for the protection] of agunot, the rabbis enacted that the woman should pay the scribe they transfer title to the husband.

Agunot are “chained women.” This term refers to women whose husbands won’t grant their divorce. This reform puts some of the power back into the hands of the wife.

Again, we see reform is nothing new and that we have been walking towards women’s rights for a long time now – getting closer all the time. (With some major set backs along the way.)

Bava Batra 167

I love a good mystery! Today’s daf features rabbis as sleuths – solving mysteries and foiling evil plans (so fun). I will highlight 3 sections. In the first, a dishonest person manipulated the Hebrew on a document by simply erasing part of a bet (which means in or of) and changing it to a vav (which means and) so that they get much more than agreed for. The second is forging signatures (and rabbis acting like their in an old western movie). The third the rabbi doesn’t foil the plan – he is duped because he doesn’t pay close enough attention to how women look!

1)There was a certain bill of sale in which it was written that the item sold was: In my garden, one-third of the orchard. The purchaser went and erased the roof and the foot of the beit of the term: Of the orchard [befardeisa], and thereby changed the prefix beit into a vav, yielding: In my garden one-third, and the orchard [ufardeisa], indicating that the sale included one-third of the garden in addition to all of the orchard. The document came before Abaye, who said to the purchaser: What is the reason that there is so much space around this vav? Since the letter vav is narrower than the letter beit, a larger space between letters emerged as compared to the spacing of letters in the rest of the document. Abaye bound the purchaser, i.e., he subjected him to physical coercion, and he admitted to the forgery.

Caught in the act! I love this. The attention paid to spaces and how just a little erasure can change everything. (By the way, they also discuss numbers and not leaving spaces after in case a dishonest person would add some zeros.)

2)There was a certain document upon which the signatures of Rava and Rav Aḥa bar Adda were signed. The one holding the document came before Rava, who said to him: This is my signature, but I never signed any document before Rav Aḥa bar Adda. Rava bound the holder of the document, i.e., he subjected him to physical coercion, and he admitted the forgery. Rava said to him: Granted, you were able to forge my signature, but how did you perform a forgery of Rav Aḥa bar Adda’s signature, since his hands shake and as a result his signature is distinctive? The man said: I placed my hands on the rope of a narrow footbridge [amitzra], and was thereby able to duplicate Rav Aḥa’s signature.

Now, I may have forged a parent signature as a kid for a field trip form that I forgot to have them sign – but forging two rabbis’ signatures! That’s chutzpah. And yougot to love them roughing him up. It’s such drama!

3) There was a certain receipt of payment of a marriage contract upon which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was signed as a witness. That woman, whose name matched the name on the receipt, came before Rav Yirmeya, seeking to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rav Yirmeya recognized her name, but not her appearance. The woman said to him: It was not I whose name was on the receipt that you signed, but another woman with the same name; I have not collected payment of my marriage contract. Rav Yirmeya said: I, too, said to the other witnesses signed on the document: The woman for whom we signed the receipt is not she. But they said to me: It is in fact the same woman, but she has aged and her voice has matured and changed, and that is why you do not recognize her.

Oh good lord. Is this Little Red Riding Hood? But Grandma, what big eyes you have! What a deep voice you have! What big teeth you have!

Truly the stuff of good literature.

Bava Batra 166

A little lesson in the basic laws of supply and demand on today’s daf. want to drive down prices? Lesson the demand.

That mishna continues: There was an incident where the price of nests, i.e., pairs of birds, stood in Jerusalem at golden dinarei, as the great demand for birds for the offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava led to an increase in the price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I take an oath by this abode of the Divine Presence that I will not lie down tonight until the price of nests will be in dinarin. Ultimately, he entered the court and taught: A woman for whom there were five definite births or five definite discharges of a zava brings one offering, and then she may partake ofthe meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her.

The mishna concludes: And as a result, the price of the nests stood that day at one-quarter of a silver dinar, as the demand for nests decreased.

This is another beautiful example of reform in Jewish law. People seem to believe that it was the reformers in Germany in the 1800s who started reform, but clearly we have been reforming ever since we got the laws from Sinai.

Bava Batra 165

Back on Bava Batra 23b, we lerned that Rabbi Yirmeya got kicked out of the study hall:

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

On today’s daf, we see him get re-instated as he humbly answers a question (or two):

After we learn that testimonies of witnesses do not combine, the rabbis ask: Is it only testimony of witnesses that we do not combine into a single testimony, but we do combine judges from two different courts? Or perhaps there is no difference. Rabbi Yirmeya sent back his response to them: I am not worthy of being the recipient of the query that you sent to me. But this is how the opinion of your student leans: That they should be combined. Ravina said a fourth version, that the dilemma the colleagues of the academy sent to Rabbi Yirmeya is as follows: If there were three judges who sat as a court to ratify a document, and, after verifying the signatures of the witnesses, one of the judges died, must they mention this in their statement of ratification, to account for why the declaration is signed by only two judges, and write: We were sitting in a group of three judges, and one of the judges is no longer alive? Or perhaps they are not required to write this. Rabbi Yirmeya sent back his response to them: I am not worthy of being the recipient of the query that you sent to me. But this is how the opinion of your student leans: That they are required to write: We were sitting in a group of three judges, and one of the judges is no longer alive. The Gemara relates: And it was because of this fitting answer, to whichever version of the dilemma that is adopted, that the Sages brought Rabbi Yirmeya into the study hall after he had been expelled.

Note his humility and his learning.

I feel like there is a lot to learn here. First, the importance of humility and accepting reprimand. But the more surprising lesson is how, even after being expelled, Rabbi Yirmeya still dedicated his hours to studying rabbinic laws. How many of us get discouraged and quit? Here, he is expelled, and yet he doubles down on his dedication.

I agree he deserves to be reinstated.

Bava Batra 164

Lashon HaRah. It means the evil tongue and refers to gossip and malicious speech. Does everyone gossip? Rav insists that we do. But first, Rabbi Shimon is chastised by his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for lashon haRah (translated below as malicious speech).

The Gemara relates: There was a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was a folded document, said: There is no date on this document, so it is not valid. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps the date is hidden between its tied folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi opened it and saw that the date was in fact between the tied folds. Afterward, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi looked at his son disapprovingly, as he held that one should not write a tied document. His son said to him: I did not write it; Rabbi Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

Dad din’t approve, so the son blames someone else, naming them! So, the son gets chastised anyways for speaking ill of someone else. This alone could be a gem, but speaking ill of someone and getting chastised, even if it’s true, is not a shocking form of lashon haRah. Keep reading.

Another time, Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father and reciting a section of the book of Psalms. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: How straight and neat is this writing in this book from which you are reading. Rabbi Shimon said to him: I did not write it; Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

Now, his dad is trying to compliment his son and his son does not take credit but says it’s another person (by the way, the same person he blamed for the tied document before). Dad says that this is ALSO evil speech. Why? The daf wants to know as well.

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the first episode, there is malicious speech involved, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was displeased with the writer of the document, but here, in the second episode, what malicious speech is there? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was complimenting the writer of the book of Psalms, not criticizing him. The Gemara answers: It is because of what Rav Dimi teaches. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak the praises of another, as out of the praise spoken about him someone may come to speak to his detriment.

The idea is that is we compliment someone, we are inviting others to judge them. (She’s so great! What’s so great about her?)

We learn from this two important ideas about lashon haRah, the evil tongue. The first is that, even if it’s true, it’s still malicious speech. And second, even saying something nice about someone, not in their presence, can lead to harm.

Can we avoid it?

Rav Amram says that Rav says: There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day. They are: Having sinful thoughts, and committing sins concerning deliberation in prayer, and uttering malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that a person cannot go through the day without uttering malicious speech?

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint, i.e., words with a bare trace, of malicious speech.

So, we should try, but it’s virtually impossible.

Bava Batra 163

Sneaky people on the daf! I swear, reading the daf this past week has made me think that you can never trust a document as they discuss all the ways people can be sneaky. today is the same.

Basically, one of the ways of ensuring a legal document is kosher is to have the signatures of the witnesses examined and approved by the Bet Din (Jewish court). Once that happens, the court will put its stamp of approval on the document. Sounds good, right?

Not so fast. The rabbis argue that someone could come and get a document stamped by the rabbis, and then go back and erase what was above it and write something new!

They point out that the witnesses might argue that this is not what they signed, but really, the message is that we can only go so far in our rules. People who want to commit fraud will figure out a way. We can do all we can to protect society, but there is only so much we can do.