Bava Batra – The Last Gate

• Seder Nezikin – “Book of Damages”
• Bava Batra – “The Last Gate” – You’re Responsible, and Here’s Why
  • With great… property… comes great responsibility. Pre-diving-in that seems to be the message we’re about to delve into. And we’re in for quite a ride. Bava Batra is the longest tractate in the entire Talmud, coming in at 176 pages, so it’s going to occupy us for the next six months. This is also one of the few tractates that is not an exposition on a section of the Torah, and is instead a codification of Jewish oral law around the rights and responsibilities of property owners.
  • 6/27/24, Chapter 1, Page 2 – The first section of the tractate looks at jointly owned property. We jump right in with one or more of the joint owners wanting either a privacy partition on the property, for which he would be responsible, or for security reasons, such as a gate house or security wall, which would be the co-responsibility of all owners. The building and maintenance costs are shared in the latter case, and, the passage is quick to point out, must be in compliance with local building codes.
  • 6/28/24, Page 3 – An argument over wall thickness in regard to building codes. If the stones used to build the wall are unplaned, i.e., they have protrusions, is the thickness of the wall measured from the tip of the protrusions or the base? Left unresolved. A weird tangent at the end of the page – a slave, Herod, rebelled against his Hasmonean masters, killing them all except the king’s daughter who he tried to forcibly marry. She commited suicide. He preserved her body in honey. Some said he preserved her body to have sex with because he really only lusted after her, others say he preserved her body in order to continue his claim he was married to the king’s daughter, whom he loved.
  • 6/29/24, Page 4 – Herod admits to the current leader of the sages that he’s the one who killed all the royalty and a whole bunch of Torah scholars and sages. The leader refuses to curse him and tells him he has to repent – a good start would be rebuilding the Temple. Herod says he’s afraid of the Roman response. The sage tells him to send a messenger to the Romans to stall for time, then go ahead and rebuild the Temple while negotiations are going on. Grace Hopper was a plagiarist.
  • 6/30/24, Page 5 – This one feels like a really bad ruling to me. Ronya owns a field that is surrounded by lands owned by Ravina. Ravina wants to build fences around all four property lines for privacy and demands that Ronya pay for part or all of them. When Ronya demurs, Ravina basically raids his fields to show him that he needs fences. The rabbis rule in Ravina’s favor. I can’t see the logic in this one.
  • 7/1/24, Page 6 – One neighbor builds a wall or fence on his property to give himself some privacy. His next door neighbor builds a higher wall, and demands that the first guy pay for half of it, “since he was already concerned about privacy”. The rabbis rule that he indeed has demonstrated his concern and therefore has to pay half the cost of his neighbor’s wall, but, not the other way around, with the second neighbor paying for half the first’s wall. I am really not following the logic on these pages.
  • 7/2/24, Page 7 – Today’s page goes into very intricacies and decisions when a property is divided by two owners. My favorite is a dispute where one person owns the lower floor and another the upper floor of a building, and the building starts to collapse, or sink, making the lower floor uninhabitable. The upper floor owner doesn’t care about the plight of the lower. The rabbis rule that he can be forced to evacuate while the property is rebuilt, but only once the height of the lower floor collapses to 10 handbreadths… approximately 1 meter in height.
  • 7/3/24, Page 8 – A litany of the various community, city, and state taxes one is expected to pay based on occupation, length of time in residence, and other factors. All are required to contribute. Except Torah scholars, who are to be exempt from paying all taxes, because, well, Torah scholars. On the flipside, God will provide for them and their safety and security, so apparently, the community, city, and state owe them no services in turn beyond basic subsistence.
  • 7/4/24, Page 9 – “Ropa para donar?” (clothing to donate?) is a phrase I hear probably 2-3 times a day when my doorbell is rung. According to Talmudic ruling, if someone is in tattered clothing, you don’t hesitate, you provide them with donated clothing, because otherwise they would be subject to contempt. I’d be out of clothing if I did that, and these folk are rarely disheveled. Interestingly, on the flipside, if someone asks for food, it is considered appropriate to inquire into just how hungry are they, since being hungry doesn’t engender contempt.
  • 7/5/24, Page 10 – We’re off on a tangent about the power of charity, of doing a mitzvah for the sake of the good it will accomplish in the world, regardless of the personal cost. There are lots of clichés and platitudes cited on the subject by one rabbi or another, but the gist of it comes down to that doing something for the good of humanity is more important than whatever personal hardship doing so might engender. Not sure how they’re going to tie this in to rights and obligations of property owners, but I can see a connection coming.
  • 7/6/24, Page 11 – When two or more people appear before the court over a property division dispute, one of the key things that is considered is what is really divisible and what isn’t. While a field may be split up into smaller fields, and a house may be able to be separated into a two family dwelling, depending on configuration. An outhouse, a bathhouse, an olive oil press, cannot be, as dividing them would render them useless to at least one of the disputants. There goes Solomon’s famous act.
  • 7/7/24, Page 12 – In the midst of a discussion on property owners taking care to not block off alleyways that provide access to public streets, the conversation switches to make sure that alleyways that connect cities are also kept clear. I found myself immediately pausing to think about cities connected by alleys – which they differentiate from public thoroughfares, and the only thing that popped into my head was the wardrobe to Narnia.
  • 7/8/24, Page 13 – The sages continue their discussions about what sorts of properties are divisible. Quite the lively argument ensues over whether the “Sacred Writings” can be split up. The question is, if two people co-own a full set of scrolls – the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings – can those be separated, and does it matter how they’re divided up among physical scrolls – can a scroll be cut? It’s left undecided, but leaning towards “no”, the entirety cannot be split up.
  • 7/9/24, Page 14 – In a side note, we find that a properly scribed Torah scroll (with double poles) should be as close to equal in height (ideally “six handbreadths”, or about two feet) as it is in width when rolled up, but at no point should the width be greater than the height. One Rav Aha bar Ya’akov scribed a Torah that was exactly equal, and his fellow rabbis were so envious that he died from the power of their jealous gaze. Jewish space lasers indeed!
  • 7/10/24, Page 15 – I do love when the sages need to twist themselves into knots to explain inconsistencies or incongruities. There is apparently written documentation, from various preserved scrolls, that certain famous biblical folk wrote not just their own or others’ stories, but wrote specific, spelled out, sections of the Torah. This is, of course, at odds with the “God dictated the Torah to Moses who wrote it down, complete” origin story. It engenders some creative illogic.
  • 7/11/24, Page 16 – We’re on a tangent started on yesterday’s page about the book of Job. Specifically, the sages seem intent on a clear identification of who and what Satan, or, really, in the original Hebrew, “The Satan” is. Via various readings of different Torah passages and the book of Job, they equate The Satan = The Evil Inclination = The Angel of Death. I’m waiting for this to all tie in to something like evil intentions or temptations of property owners.
    • Side note, as there’s a short finish to this chapter on page 17 – an argument over who, in history, has never been subject to the temptations of The Satan. All agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are included, but the list varies from there, among any of a half a dozen others who various rabbis think merit such esteem. In the end, only the three forefathers are universally agreed upon.
  • 7/12/24, Chapter 2, Page 17 – If you’re going to dig a hole in the ground, for example, a cistern, you are required to make sure it’s not too close to an existing one on, say, a neighbor’s property, and to ensure that the walls are reinforced so that the ground between them will not collapse. The general guideline is 3 handbreadths, or a foot, from your property line, which makes it about 2 feet apart at the closest from your neighbor’s. Apparently we are not going to get a tie-in (yet?) of The Satan to property owner responsibilities.
  • 7/13/24, Page 18 – Like the well in yesterday’s discussion, other things must be kept a foot away from the property line – irrigation channels, vegetable plants, and fertilizer that uses things like lime, urine, and/or manure. Trees must be further, because of their root system – a solid 6 feet away. Of note, if one person keeps bees and another grows mustard, they must be widely separated – bees apparently harm mustard plants, and mustard plants taint the honey of the bees.
  • 7/14/24, Page 19 – Well, I’m glad we clarified this. After yesterday’s prohibition on dumping urine any closer than a foot to the property line wall, an objection is raised. What about peeing? I mean, if you’re going to pee, you pee against the wall. Indeed, most of the rabbis agree that this is an exception – it’s quite proper to stand and pee against a wall. Not everyone agrees, a few call out that it might be proper to do so, but only if you’re a dog.
  • 7/15/24, Page 20 – We’ve read about how impurity from impure objects spreads through a room. If two rooms are connected by an open window, it can spread there too. But what if something is placed in the window to block it? If, and only if, it’s something that otherwise is not of use, and is permanent. So, not a bunch of leaves, or a pile of books, or a hanging curing meat (prosciutto? are they curing prosciutto?), or… a baby. No, you cannot use your baby to block impurities from passing through a window.
  • 7/16/24, Page 21 – Early on, the sages realized that not every man was capable of teaching his sons Torah. So they established a system of teachers for children to learn Torah. Maximum of 25 students per teacher. Teaching gentile children was optional, and the community could forbid it. We later have a scene in the days of King David, where we find that a teacher who taught Torah incorrectly could be executed, and one who failed to notice that his students had learned incorrectly, could potentially be as well. This sounds so familiar….
  • 7/17/24, Page 22 – Most of today’s page is devoted to positioning of walls and ladders and making sure mongooses cannot invade your neighbor’s dovecote and eat the birds or eggs. I, however, am intrigued by the ruling over cosmetics and perfumes peddlers. It seems that the wives of both rich men and rabbis had some influence in Talmudic decisions, as their right to check out the latest in makeup and scents resulted in a ruling that said peddlers never be impeded in their travel or lodging.
  • 7/18/24, Page 23 – So far we’ve focused on not causing direct damage to a neighbor’s property. But what about indirect damage? You’re engaged in an activity that as a byproduct causes damages – they use an example of an activity that attracts crows who might eat produce from a neighbor’s field. GMO seeds spring to mind for a modern day example. The upshot, love thy neighbor as thyself – move or cease the activity in a place where it might indirectly damage a neighbor’s property.
  • 7/19/24, Page 24 – If your property is outside the city walls, you have to take extra care when planting trees. Most must be at least 25 cubits, about 38 feet, from the city wall; while trees that have a lot of branches, like sycamores and carobs, must be double that. Why? Because, it is opined, cities are so aesthetically beautiful that you can’t have trees obscuring approaching travelers’ view of them. Cities – pretty. Trees – not pretty. Umm, okay.
  • 7/20/24, Page 25 – What direction should one face when praying? Well, north if you want to achieve wealth; south if you want to achieve wisdom; and west if you want to touch the Divine Presence. Never east, because that’s the direction that heretics (Christians and Muslims at the time) were instructed to face in order to pray. In the Talmudic view, despite God being everywhere, west was his seat of power, so praying to the east was turning your back on him.
  • 7/21/24, Page 26 – We’re back on the layout of your grounds. If you’re planting a vineyard, you must plant it at least 4 cubits – 6 feet – from the property line. This is in order to allow room to maneuver your oxen around the vineyard at harvest time. Today, that would be room for a mechanical harvester. If you’re planting an orchard, the trees must be 16 cubits – 24 feet – from the property line in order to avoid the roots encroaching on, and “stealing nutrition” from, your neighbor’s soil.
  • 7/22/24, Page 27 – Grammar and geometry occupy today’s page. We start with our tree from yesterday, planted 24 feet from a neighbor’s lands. But what if the roots, or the branches, extend onto the neighbor’s property? Well then, obviously, the tree’s owner is a thief! Or wait, no, the grammar is unclear… many sages read this as the tree itself is the thief. And that 24 feet? Most of us would assume a circle around the tree, but some of these rabbis argue for a square, adding in those corners as forbidden territory, and the calculations to prove it.
  • 7/23/24, Chapter 3, Page 28 – With regard to what may as well be called squatter’s rights, the rabbis establish that the daily use of a property for three years establishes ownership. This applies whether it is a home, a well, a ditch, a field, a bathhouse, a vineyard, an olive grove, or the presses for either of those, a cave, a dovecote, or… a slave. That’s right, grab yourself someone else’s slave, put him to work for three years, and he’s yours.
  • 7/24/24, Page 29 – Continuing on squatter’s rights, the question is raised – what if the original owner of the property has been abroad, and returns only to find that someone has taken over his lands? Is his protest over ownership valid if the three years allotted have passed? Surprisingly, the rabbis say no – because in a sort of six degrees of separation moment, they assert that everyone is connected by a friend of a friend of a friend who would have let you know.
  • 7/25/24, Page 30 – A traveling businessman returns home to find someone living in his home. The person claims to have been there for more than three years, and that the merchant had come and gone over that period. The merchant claims to have been so focused on his trade that he never noticed there was someone living in his house. Could this be? Rava, one of the shapers of the Talmud, says “yes”, someone who is focused on their work could easily have not noticed. No squatter’s rights from Rava!
  • 7/26/24, Page 31 – We’re now going completely in the opposite direction from squatter’s rights, as the senior rabbis quash these claims left and right. Two competing claims on land – one claims, and provides evidence, for ownership of the land based on inheritance and ancestry, the other that occupation over time, even over generations, trumps ancestry and inheritance. The rabbis rule in favor of ancestry and toss the occupiers to the curb. Rather prescient for what’s going on “over there” these days.
  • 7/27/24, Page 32 – A man has a bill of sale for a piece of land that he is claiming ownership of. He is accused of having forged the document. He admits the forgery, but says he did it because he lost the real one, and this was his only way of proving his ownership. That this claim engenders a rabbinical argument over whether or not to accept his claim (“why would he make up such a story if it wasn’t true?”) seems ridiculous to me.
  • 7/28/24, Page 33 – A man borrows money from a lender, guaranteeing it with his property. He dies, leaving his children as orphans (callback reminder, according to the Talmud, children are orphans if their father dies, even if their mother is still alive). The rabbis rule that the lender cannot take the land in repayment, as… there are orphans living on it. Instead, he must wait until they are adults and then take them to court to recover the money he loaned.
  • 7/29/24, Page 34 – In what may be one of the more bizarre, at least to modern sensibilities, court cases, when neither side of a dispute over property ownership is able to provide evidence for their claim, the suggestion is made that the court step out of it, and “let the stronger prevail”. Certainly it’s an approach used in territorial disputes, but it’s interesting to see it in the context of individual properties. Could that happen in today’s world? Oh wait, Musk vs. Zuckerberg….
  • 7/30/24, Page 35 – A man sells a donkey or cow or maidservant – may as well lump them all together, right? – not knowing that the animal or servant is pregnant and it gives birth. Both buyer and seller claim the offspring as theirs. Initially it is proposed that ownership depends on transaction date, then on delivery date, and then they decide that the court shouldn’t really be involved and just let the two litigants battle it out physically. All this seems very antithetical to the whole purpose of the Talmud, to me.
  • 7/31/24, Page 36 – These guys are all over the place when it comes to determining ownership. Today’s arguments are over, more or less, the modern dictum of “possession is 9/10 of the law”. Someone who is out plowing and planting fields that they claim are theirs, or harvesting dates, or other fruits from trees, can be assumed to be the rightful owner, because, argue some of the sages, who in their right mind would plow and plant fields or harvest fruits that weren’t their own?!
  • 8/1/24, Page 37 – A seller claims that he sold an orchard to a buyer – but just the trees, not the land – and that he has the right to plow the land around the trees, or force the buyer to move the trees elsewhere. There are arguments raised on both sides, and the rabbis come down with the decision that his position is only valid if he spelled that out in the sales contract. Otherwise, at a minimum, the buyer controls, if not owns, the minimum amount of land around each tree to maintain it.
  • 8/2/24, Page 38 – “What if?” following on yesterday’s page… “what if it’s not an orchard or a tree, but a small plant?” Does the buyer acquire the land under and around it when it is sold to him? No, replies Rava, and others agree. It’s not reasonable to expect that someone selling you a saffron crocus plant is selling you his entire garden, in this case, unless he specifies that, the seller controls the land. But Rava, you find it reasonable that if I buy a couple of trees I buy the entire estate?
  • 8/3/24, Page 39 – A squatter occupied the land of an owner who was away in Spain for a year. Yes, Spain. Surely, the rabbis opine, someone went to Spain to tell him about it during that year, so we can assume that he knew about it and lodged a protest if he objected. Fine, says the owner, but see, what I did, is I protested to someone in Spain about this squatter on my land, surely, someone went back home to the squatter to advise him of my protest. Two can play at this game.
  • 8/4/24, Page 40 – A coerced document is not valid. That is all.
  • 8/5/24, Page 41 – Although I’m assuming it is not the intent of the rabbinical rulings here, the gist of this passage is – if you don’t have proof of your legitimate claim of ownership, for example, you lost the bill of sale, or the deed, or something similar, you should make up a story that is unverifiable, and not disprovable. That, at the least, will give you standing in court to argue your case. This sounds like a setup for all sorts of con games.
  • 8/6/24, Page 42 – We’re back on presumptive ownership after three years of occupying and working on a property. The rabbis want to make it clear that ownership is personal, not collective. That’s to say, the person making the claim, or their son or father, must themselves occupy and work on the property. A business partner does not count, as they have their own interests in ownership.
  • 8/7/24, Page 43 – Person A owes money to Person C, guaranteed by a lien on a property he co-owns with Person B. He sells his share of the property to Person B and relinquishes ownership of it. Person C takes them both to court, and while Person B didn’t know about the lien, the courts rule that Person C can take possession of the share of the property formerly owned by Person A – selling it to someone else does not eliminate the lien. Know your partner!
  • 8/8/24, Page 44 – The rabbis have been discussing what amounts to due diligence over the last couple of pages. Today they discuss the difference in doing so for immovable property, like land and/or a home, versus movable property, for example, a cloak, or a… slave. Their reasoning doesn’t delve so much into chain of custody and documents as it does into “people will talk” – i.e., if you sell a piece of land, everyone knows, and someone will rat out a sketchy seller. For a cloak, or slave, probably, no one’s going to say anything.
  • 8/9/24, Page 45 – Bring a gentile into the mix and, well, you know what you get. So says Ameimar, rector of one of the most prestigious rabbinical academies, and widely considered one of the most important sages of his time. We all know, he opines, that the average, ordinary gentile is an extortionist, and nothing they say in regard to business dealings can be trusted. Funny how that belief almost two millennia ago has been flipped around, no?
  • 8/10/24, Page 46 – A craftsman accidentally gives you the wrong package of utensils and you don’t discover it until you reach home. You notify him via messenger, and are allowed to use the utensils you were given until he comes to you and swaps them out for the correct ones. That’s right, the craftsman is required to do the legwork, not you.
  • 8/11/24, Page 47 – At first blush, today’s page seems strange. Led by a senior rabbi, a ruling is codified that if a property is obtained from its owner under duress, and specifically, threat of death, the transfer of ownership is valid. On deeper dive, the rabbis are referring to situations where essentially sanctioned assassins are the ones taking the property. The ruling is basically acknowledging reality – they’re going to do it, better to let them and buy back the property, than lose your life.
  • 8/12/24, Page 48 – Commandment 209 of the 613 in the Torah states that you should honor, give respect to, the elderly. That’s all it says. But in a blatantly self-aggrandizing move, the sages, and rabbis, declare that what that really means is that you have to listen and be obedient to them and their wisdom and authority, even if they advise or do something illegal or immoral. This sounds… so familiar.
  • 8/13/24, Page 49 – A married couple may enjoy the profits from profit that either of them brought into the marriage. But, the rabbis want to make clear, unless they create and sign agreements changing the ownership, any property they come into the marriage with, remains their individual property, and the other has no claim on it in the event of separation, divorce, or death. Only properties bought while they were married have joint ownership.
  • 8/14/24, Page 50 – Following on yesterday, the sages opine that it is perfectly valid for a husband to ask his wife to sign over her property to him jointly, and if she doesn’t it is perfectly valid for him to be suspicious of her motives. After all, perhaps she is already thinking about his death, or divorcing him. They don’t seem to consider that his asking might be him contemplating the same about her, nor do they consider the reverse case, her asking him to sign over his property to be jointly owned.
  • 8/15/24, Page 51 – A husband sells part or full ownership of a property to his wife. He later claims he did it only to find out if she had more money than she let on, hidden away from him. The rabbis rule that the sale is valid if she can prove he knew about her money, but invalid if she can’t prove it. I find myself trying to imagine a worldview where this would be something a husband would do to his wife in the first place. I suppose, arranged marriages for family prominence and all that.
  • 8/16/24, Page 52 – A minor is considered sufficiently responsible to deposit collateral in guarantee of a loan, however, is not considered sufficiently responsible to have the item of collateral returned to him. Instead, the lender uses the collateral to purchase a “safe investment” in the name of the minor, to be collected when he is of age. A Torah scroll or a date palm tree are both suggested, the former for its enduring value, the latter because at least he’ll be able to eat. Our ancestors were very weird people.
  • 8/17/24, Page 53 – Because in daf yomi we read these pages one at a time, I sometimes miss the connectedness of thought processes. It turns out that the last ten pages are commentary on exceptions to the rule of presumptive ownership outlined on page 42 – occupying and working a property for three years allows you to claim ownership. This is apparently the last, and notes that the presumptive owner has to take action to secure the property – a fence, a wall, a new lock – in the presence of the owner or witnesses, in order to validate his claim.
  • 8/18/24, Page 54 – When does the ownership of a piece of property change over after a sale? In the Talmudic era, gentiles assumed that transfer occurred on the receipt of payment, while Jews assumed it on the receipt of the deed. This created a window if those things didn’t happen simultaneously, for someone else to lay claim to the temporarily ownerless land by performing an appropriate act of acquisition. And, it apparently wasn’t all that unusual of an occurrence.
  • 8/19/24, Page 55 – When it comes to property, despite all the Talmudic laws, the local law of the land takes precedence as long as it is part of its national constitution and legislation. Not, however, if it is imposed by a monarch or leader for their own gain, outside of written law. The examples given are Persian law, which only allows squatter’s rights possession after 40 years instead of the Talmudic 3 years takes precedence; and, in turn, eminent domain, on a monarch’s whim, is not considered valid.
  • 8/20/24, Page 56 – Back on squatter’s rights and working the land to establish ownership over three years. Obviously, there has to be proof, and witnesses were the primary manner of providing it. If, however, it is found that the witnesses have lied on behalf of the person claiming ownership, conspiring to help him get the property – presumably for their own profit as well – they are held equally responsible for all penalties and repayment to the actual owner.
  • 8/21/24, Page 57 – Partnerships and cooperative arrangements for owning property can make a wide variety of rules regarding the usage of common areas, such as courtyards. However, the one activity that may not be prohibited, for any reason, is women doing laundry. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. The laundry must be done!
  • 8/22/24, Page 58 – A brief tangential topic on today’s page that caught my attention. How do you tell the difference between a Torah scholar and an Ignoramus? You look under their bed. A true Torah scholar will have nothing but his sandals in summer or shoes in winter under his bed. The more other stuff that’s under there, the more ignorant the bed’s owner.
  • 8/23/24, Page 59 – The sages argue over the respective rights of two neighbors when it comes to building additions onto their homes that might impact sightlines, sunlight, drainage or irrigation, privacy, and projecting onto each other’s property. The arguments are exactly what we might hear at a modern planning commission or zoning board meeting. It’s both bizarre and a shame that after two millennia we’re still having the exact same property rights arguments.
  • 8/24/24, Page 60 – In a sort of Jewish feng shui, the rabbis discuss the arrangements of houses that face onto a common courtyard. One key point they drive home is that all the houses have to be designed in such a way that no one’s doors or windows face directly at the doors or windows of the house opposite them. The alignment or spacing of them must be such that they are… staggered, so no one can look directly into the home of a neighbor, providing a small measure of privacy.
  • 8/25/24, Chapter 4, Page 61 – The sages discuss the sale of a home where the seller owns the structures on the land, but not the land. The concept is similar to what today we’d think of as a condo or co-op townhouse, where the land is owned by the community or a corporation. Basically, today’s page is an outline of what you have to make sure you spell out is included in a sales contract – any extensions, side or rear buildings, additions, wells or cisterns, etc.
  • 8/26/24, Page 62 – Pretty much a repeat of yesterday’s page, except outlining what needs to be specified in the sale of land. Exact boundaries and what’s included. I’m waiting for the section of this chapter where the arguments start.
  • 8/27/24, Page 63 – Back to the sale of the house, but now including… the land and the air rights. So, how does one write such a real estate contract? “From the depth of the earth up to the height of the sky.” That so much more poetic than the legalese we use nowadays. And conveys the meaning as well as most legal documents do. It would even engender the same courtroom arguments. “How deep is the earth?” “How high is the sky?”
  • 8/28/24, Page 64 – Selling a plot of land, with or without its house, did not, apparently, unless specified, include: pits, cisterns, dovecotes, and winepresses. Those things are valuable enough that they could be sold separately, which also meant that rights of access had to be worked out. All of this chapter so far seems to come down to, “make sure to get all the details in writing before you sign a sales contract”.
  • 8/29/24, Page 65 – These guys are really fixated on the furniture and fixtures. I guess it’s no different than modern day sales contracts. Who among us hasn’t bought, or rented, a place to live only to arrive after getting the keys and found that the refrigerator was taken by the previous owner or tenant, or even something small, like all the lightbulbs? Different focus two millennia ago, but the rabbis do discuss ovens, cisterns, wine-making utensils, and… beehives.
  • 8/30/24, Page 66 – The discussion on beehives continues today, first over whether honey can be harvested on Shabbat, then over what sorts of mortgages can be attached to a beehive, and then, a linguistic argument over whether a particular Hebrew phrase means “honeycomb” or “honey forest”. And my mind is off on imagining the latter.
  • 8/31/24, Page 67 – More of the same, with the topics of today’s page being an olive press and a bathhouse. If the furniture and fixtures are not specified in the sale, they don’t come with the property. And, in another arena, if you buy multiple properties in a single sale, taking possession of one of them gives you possession of all of them, if, and only if, they are contiguous. If they are not, you must take possession of each, in turn. Possession in this case being performing an act of improvement on it, whatever that act may be.
  • 9/1/24, Page 68 – In the realm of things we don’t tend to think about in property sales in modern times, what about when someone sells… a city? What does that include? Does it include the gardens in the city? The surrounding fields that supply it? The nearby woods where people hunt? The city’s suburbs? The cattle and other grazing animals? It’s slaves? The city’s registrar? Yes, these are the things that must be hashed out and specified in contracts. The registrar?! Talk about job security for public employees….
  • 9/2/24, Page 69 – The level of detail of what has to be enumerated in a sales contract as included has reached absurdity, yet, probably indicates issues that actually came up in era. Rocks in a field? If they’re not random but actually being useful for a wall, or preventing things from blowing away. Reeds in a field? If they’re providing wind protection. A platform under a bed? If it’s non-moveable. Door frames? If they’re attached to the house with clay, but not if just nailed in.
  • 9/3/24, Page 70 – Today’s page spends much of the time discussing how big a tree has to be before it is considered automatically part of a land sale, as opposed to being transplanted to the seller’s new property. However, this page has caused some consternation among Talmudic scholars, as the rabbis quoted in the argument… weren’t alive at the same time. In the 18th century, one of the preeminent Talmudic scholars declared unequivocally that the Talmud was… wrong.
  • 9/4/24, Page 71 – It’s been established that a seller may sell property and exclude certain things, like a favorite tree, to which he retains access. But what about a house? It’s hard to imagine, but the rabbis disagree and argue, for example, over whether if a seller sells a house and specifies something like “along with its 100 barrels of wine”, and it turns out there are… 120… or 101… that he retains the portion where the extra barrels are as his own property, with access.
  • 9/5/24, Page 72 – An argument between several of the more famous rabbis leads to reiterating a simple principle of Jewish law – nothing is absolute. It’s one of the reasons that there was both a Talmudic rabbinical council and Sanhedrin (sort of a Jewish supreme court) back in the day, and there are still rabbinical courts in the more orthodox world today. Jewish law is considered a guideline for rabbinical decisions, not an absolute, and each case is decided on its own merits and circumstances.

 

Go back to Bava Metzia – The Middle Gate 

Go forward to Sanhedrin

Go back to Main Page