2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

OH do I feel called out by today’s daf! If you, like me, often don’t say anything when someone does something that makes you uncomfortable. If you don’t draw the line right away, and then the line get’s SO violated it’s far in the distance – get ready for the daf.

Rav Naḥman says: If one acquired the privilege to place thin beams on his neighbor’s wall, i.e., if one had used the wall in that manner in the past and the owner did not protest, so the one using it can maintain that he had acquired from the owner the right to do so, he has not acquired the privilege to place thick beams there. But if he acquired the privilege to place thick beams on the wall, he has acquired the privilege to place thin beams there. Rav Yosef says: If he acquired the privilege to place thin beams, he also has acquired the privilege to place thick beams. There are those who say that Rav Naḥman says: If one acquired the privilege to place thin beams on his neighbor’s wall, he has acquired the privilege to place thick beams there; and if he acquired the privilege to place thick beams, he has acquired the privilege to place thin beams.

Yep. You have property and your neighbor puts things on it. Do you want them to? Maybe not. But, you figure, it’s no big deal, just a little light thing. But then your neighbor thinks – oh, I am free to use this however I want! And placed big heavy beams. Well, now you don’t get to complain! You should have said something from the beginning.

Another example

Rav Naḥman says: If one acquired the privilege to let water drip from his roof into his neighbor’s courtyard, he has acquired the privilege to let the water pour there through a drainpipe.

What!!! Can you imagine? So, a little run off from the neighbors roof comes into your yard. Do you like it? No, but it’s not a big deal . . . until they build a drainage pipe that pours water into your yard causing a muddy mess.

More examples are given including your neighbor hanging items from your wall or using your wall to prop up their Sukkah (once you say nothing on day 8, you have tacitly given them the right to keep it up all year!).

The message? Say something.

Have I learned it? Nope.

Bava Batra began by discussing how two neighbors share the cost of a partition built between their abutting gardens. Today, the question becomes how to split costs when there is more than one border with the same neighbor. What if one refuses to pay? What if you own fields that surround all four borders of your neighbors property and yet they don’t want to chip in for the fences? When you build yours, they are protected! The questions becomes if the court forces the neighbor who did NOT want to pay to pay half of just the last partition, all 4 partitions, or the cost of a watchman who would have had to be paid had there not been the partitions.

For the answer we get a story where we find out there is a feud between Ravina the sage and his neighbor Ronya.

It is related that a man named Ronya 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 four partitions. Ronya 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. Ronya 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.

Ravina tries to get his share of money owed to him for building the partitions, he goes cheaper and cheaper, but Ronya still refuses. So, Ravina sets out to prove that Ronya benefits from the partitions.

One day, Ronya was harvesting dates. Ravina said to his sharecropper: Go take a cluster [kibbura] of dates from him. The sharecropper went to bring them, but Ronya 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? Ronya 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.

Ronya refuses so they take the matter to court.

Ravina came before Rava to adjudicate the matter. Rava said to Ronya: 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.

And so we get a ruling, and we get some gossip! The daf then tells us of another head-to-head between the two neighbors when Ravina tries to stop a land purchase from Ronya but is overruled by the court. This shows us that the court does not show favor – and that the beef goes both ways.

The gem? Either that rabbis are people too or that we really should try to get along with our neighbors. Either way we see that while a lot has changed, so much hasn’t since the times of the Talmud.

The Herod saga continues! Today, we find out exactly why the rabbis reported such a horrible story about Herod, the builder of the Second Temple, on our daf yesterday (where they accused him of necrophilia).

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.

He murders all the Sages!!! No wonder they hated him. By the way, if you look at encyclopedia’s on Jewish history, it appears that Herod was born Jewish, it was his father who converted – not that any of that should matter, but he seems very self-conscious about it.

So, all the sages dead but one . . . who is about to loose his eyes.

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).

So, convinced that he made a mistake, Herod is convinced that his only way to repent is to build the Holy Temple. And, we read later on the daf: The Sages say: One who has not seen Herod’s building has never seen a beautiful building in his life.

I was just in Rome (amazing). One of the many builders of the city was Herod. King Herod also built up Judea and, most famously, built the Second Temple. I thought I knew a lot about him . . . until I read this daf.

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.

More to come on tomorrows daf, but in the mean time – WOW! Can you guess how the rabbis felt about this guy by implanting a story of necrophilia? Yep. They weren’t fans. He does murder a bunch of Sages, so you can understand where they’re coming from. But that story is on tomorrow’s daf. Stay tuned.

New book! Still on the topic of civil law and damages, but with a new twist. We kick off Bava Batra discussing two neighbors placing in a wall or barrier. (Who pays for what etc.) There are lots of reasons to want to build a wall or barrier between properties, but this is my gem:

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. 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. 

Privacy!

I really liked the section because we have two competing priorities. The first is that we want light and windows but the second is that we want privacy.

Privacy is one of the values we get from the Torah. When Balaam sees the camp of the ancient Hebrews he says, “ how beautiful are your tents o’ Jacob you’re dwelling places o’ Israel.” Why ere they beautiful? The Rabbi teaches they were set up in a way where people were able to get light in their windows, but still not able to see into each other‘s homes so that they had privacy.

This reminds me of how as a child if I danced in front of the window at night, (the window worked as a mirror with the light difference) so I used to practice my dance moves only to find out that a kid who lived on the cul-de-sac behind mine could see me dancing, which was very embarrassing. 



Mazal tov! It’s the end of Bava Metzia. We end being told that if two people own two gardens, one on a plane above the other, the owner of the upper garden can only harvest what’s in their garden (what they can reach). We also learn that a tree that sprouts from a root from another tree is a new tree and you need to wait 3 years (orla) to harvest it.

The overall gem for me is that over a thousand years can pass and we still have the same issues.

My junior year of college I was invited to interview for a position at Anheiser Busch. One of the perks of the job was that you receive a case of beer every month. Clearly this left an impression on me if I still remember it. How much is a case of beer? Not too much when you think of a real salary… todays daf asks if we can pay employees in the item they work on (one example is, if you hire someone to gather hay, can you pay them in hay) or, do you have to pay in a form of currency that is easier to spend?

In the case of one who hires a laborer to do work with him with hay or with straw, and after he finished the task, the laborer said to the employer: Give me my wages, and the employer said to him: Take what you have worked with as your wages, i.e., take some of the hay or straw as payment, the court does not listen to him. But if after the laborer accepted upon himself to keep the hay or straw as payment, the employer changed his mind and said to him: Here you are, take your wages and I will take what is mine; the court does not listen to him, since the laborer had already acquired the hay. 

So, you have to pay your employees in the form they agreed upon. So, if it’s cash it’s cash, and if they prefer to get paid in cases of beer, well, that’s how you pay them!

The daf is hard enough to read, but many who have studied it in the past memorized it! One way is through mnemonic which help you to remember rulings and who said what. Today’s gem is the mnemonic on the daf. 

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.

Classic. Will I remember this? I don’t know. But I do think I am slightly more likely to because of this mnemonic.

We have made it to the tenth and final perek of Bava Metzia!! And it’s all about when a two story house that is owned by more than one person collapses.

Two Mishnas appear on today’s daf. In the first Mishna, it’s a two story building that collapses, and the Mishna rules that the two partners divide up the rocks, bricks, and building materials equally between them – unless you recognize your particular rock.

The second Mishna, my gem, discusses a case where only the top floor collapsed.

If there was a house and an upper story owned by one person, and the upper story was rented out to another, if the floor of the upper story was broken, i.e., it fell in or collapsed, and the owner of the house does not want to repair it, the resident of the upper story can go down and live in the house below until the owner repairs the upper story for him.

But, if you’re renting an apartment you might prefer the upper floor! in that case you can force the owner to fix it up.

Today’s gem comes from an interpretation of Proverbs 6 which not only teaches us about being a guarantor but also about how to apologize to a friend.

“My son, if you are a guarantor for your neighbor, if you have struck your hands for a stranger, you are ensnared by the words of your mouth; you are caught by the words of your mouth. Do this, now, my son, and deliver yourself, when you have come into the hand of your friend; go humble yourself and strengthen your friend” (Proverbs 6:1–3). This passage in Proverbs is interpreted as follows: The phrase “You are snared by the words of your mouth” is referring to a guarantor who obligated himself to pay or one who upset his friend with his comments. In such a case, one should do the following: If he has money in your hand, “go humble yourself [hitrapes],” which is expounded as: Release for him the palm of your hand [hatter lo pissat yad] to give him his money. And if it is not money that you owe him, but rather you have “become ensnared by the words of your mouth” and owe him an apology for a personal slight, gather together many neighbors through which to seek his forgiveness.

Maimonides teaches that when an apologize to someone we need to follow certain rules. One comes from this – if you insulted them in front of people, you need to gather those people (and maybe others) to apologize for what you said.

I love this rule. My boys like to insult each other. They know the other isn’t serious, but those listening might believe what is being said. So it is with all of us. When we say something, it’s impossible to take it back. However, we can apologize or explain. But it’s not only the object of our words who need to hear it but EVERYONE who heard.