Mishnah
1 Condominium owners who want to make a separation in the courtyard build the wall in the middle. Where people usually build with unhewn stones, or hewn stones, or half-bricks, or bricks, everything follows local custom. For unhewn stones, each partner gives three handbreadths. For hewn stones, each gives two and a half handbreadths. For half-bricks, each gives two handbreadths. For bricks, each gives one and a half handbreadths. So if the wall collapses the place and the stones belong to both of them.
Halakhah
“Condominium owners who want to make a separation,” etc. As we stated elsewhere, “One does not subdivide a courtyard unless each party has four cubits.” There, this applies if the two parties do not agree. But here, both parties agree. You could even say that here it applies if the two parties do not agree. If one wants to build, the other can be compelled. If the other wants to build, the first can be compelled. Rabbi Joḥanan said, contributions can be compelled for courtyards, but not for roofs. Rabbi Nasa meant a courtyard higher than the roof. But if the roof is higher than the courtyard, contributions can be compelled. Rabbi Joḥanan meant that contributions can be compelled when the courtyard is higher than the roof. But if the roof is higher than the courtyard, contributions cannot be compelled.
Mishnah
2 The same applies to a vegetable garden. Where fencing is customary, he must put up a fence. But in an agricultural area, where fencing is not customary, he is not required to put up a fence. But if he wants to, he builds inside his land and puts a façade on the outside. So if the wall collapses both land and stones are his. But if they agree to do it together, they build the wall in the middle and put façades on both sides. So if the wall collapses both land and stones belong to both of them.
Halakhah
“Similarly for a vegetable garden,” etc. It was stated: For a vegetable garden, whether fencing is customary there or not, contributions can be compelled. But in an agricultural area, contributions can be compelled where fencing is customary. Where fencing is not customary, contributions cannot be compelled.
Mishnah
3 Somebody’s property surrounded another’s on three sides. If he fenced in the first, and the second, and the third sides, one does not hold the other liable. Rabbi Yose said, if the other owner then fenced in the fourth side, he is charged for everything. If a courtyard wall collapses, he is required to rebuild it up to four cubits. He is presumed to have contributed, unless he brings proof that he did not contribute. He is not required to build higher than four cubits, but if he built an adjacent wall, even if he did not put on a roof, he is charged for everything. He is presumed not to have contributed, unless he brings proof that he contributed.
Halakhah
“Somebody’s property surrounded another’s,” etc. “If a courtyard wall collapses,” etc. Rav Huna said, only at the rate at which he is building now. For if he built it with arches, he had to build it with arches. But here, if it was built with arches and he built it with bricks, he can collect the cost of arches, and if it collapses, he has to rebuild it.
“Rabbi Yose said, if the other owner then fenced in the fourth side, he is charged for everything.” Rav Huna said, he is charged for the length of the wall.
That covers its length. What about its width? Rabbi Nasa said, the courtyard wall is built only to protect his privacy. They meant that if he wanted to put on a roof, he cannot do so. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it in terms of his beams.
Mishnah
4 He can be compelled to build a porter’s lodge and a door for the courtyard. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all courtyards are appropriate for a porter’s lodge. He can be compelled to build a wall for the town with double doors and a bolt. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all towns are appropriate for a wall. How long does he have to stay in a town to be like an inhabitant of the town? Twelve months. If he bought an apartment, he immediately becomes an inhabitant of the town.
Halakhah
“He can be compelled to build,” etc. Rabbi La said, “That is right.” A prudent person’s practice is to build himself a wall, as it says, “A rich person’s wealth is his strong fortressProverbs 10:15, etc.” It was stated: “If he stayed there for thirty days, he is treated like the townspeople for the charity chest, for clothing six months, for assessments and penalties twelve months.” After all this, does the twelve-month requirement apply only to assessments and penalties? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said it applies to Passover wheat, both receiving and giving.
Mishnah
5 A courtyard is not divided unless there are four cubits for each one, nor a field unless there are nine qab for each person. Rabbi Judah says, nine half qabbim for each one. A vegetable garden is not divided unless there is half a qab for each person. Rabbi Akiva says, the area of a quarter qab. Nor are the dining hall, nor the storage room, nor the dovecote, nor the cloak, nor the bathhouse, nor the olive press divided unless there is one for each of them. This is the principle: Anything that retains its name after division may be divided. Otherwise, it may not be divided. When does this apply? When the two of them do not agree. However, if both of them want it, they may divide even if it is less. But they should not divide Holy Scripture even if both of them want it.
Halakhah
“A courtyard is not divided,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits they mentioned are outside the four cubits by the doors. Bar Kappara stated it this way, One does not subdivide a courtyard unless there are eight cubits for each party. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the four cubits they mentioned do not become his property. They are for him to leave his animal temporarily and unload his package. Rabbi Jonathan asked: did they say this only so he could leave his animal and unload his package temporarily? A teaching was found that states that even the circular enclosure of a cistern has four cubits. They said in Rabbi Yannai’s school, the chicken coop also has four cubits.
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Benaiah said, Co-owners can prevent one another from doing anything in the courtyard except washing clothes because of the honor of the daughters of Israel. Rabbi Mattaniah said, this applies where women wash clothes, but not where men wash clothes. The statement allowing washing clothes for the honor of the daughters of Israel means that he may prevent it only within his own four cubits. The statement that co-owners can prevent one another from doing anything in the courtyard applies throughout the courtyard, except within the other person’s own four cubits, where he cannot prevent him. But if the ground slopes, even in the other person’s own four cubits he can prevent him, since he can tell him, “You are pouring water out on your property, but it flows down onto mine.”
Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said, If anyone does not want to participate in an ʿeruv, someone enters his house and makes the ʿeruv against his will. But was it not taught, if he does not want to make an ʿeruv, if he does not refuse, someone enters his house and makes the ʿeruv against his will? Because he does not refuse. But this does not apply if he refuses. But was it not taught, “The residents of a dead end alley may force one another to make a lath or a beam for the dead end alley.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it is not that he refused. Rather, out of ill will he does not want to participate in an ʿeruv.
Rav Huna said, a courtyard is divided by the number of doors. Rav Ḥisda said, the baraita refers to manure. It was stated as follows: “For the cooking stove, one handbreadth, for manure according to doors, for the covered walkway according to people.” “Five courtyards were using a water conduit, and it broke. All of them repair together with the highest courtyard. The highest courtyard repairs at its place. The others repair with the second one. The second one repairs at its place. The lowest courtyard repairs with all of them and at its place.” “Five apartments are built above a house that broke down. All of them repair with the lowest apartment. The lowest apartment repairs at its place. The others repair with the second one. The second one repairs at its place. The highest apartment repairs with all of them and at its place. If it was a storm sewer, they can prevent its use for laundry. If it was for laundry, they cannot prevent its use as a storm sewer.”
“But they should not divide Holy Scripture even if both of them want it.” Rabbi Hoshaiah said, for example, Psalms and Chronicles. But they may divide Psalms from Psalms. Rabbi Uqba said, even Psalms may not be divided from Psalms. Since they may not divide them, each of them comes and reads in the other’s book.
Mishnah
1 A person may not dig a cistern close to his neighbor’s cistern, nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond unless he keeps three handbreadths from his neighbor’s wall and lines it with lime. Olive peat, manure, salt, lime, and rocks must be kept three handbreadths from his neighbor’s wall, or the wall must be lined with lime. Seeds, plows, and urine must be kept three handbreadths from the wall. A grindstone must be kept three handbreadths away at its base, which means four from the moving stone, and an oven three handbreadths away at its base, which means four from its rim.
Halakhah
“A person may not dig a cistern,” etc. This is how the Mishnah reads, “A person may not dig a cistern close to the wall of his neighbor’s cistern. Nor a ditch, nor a cave, nor a water canal, nor a washer’s pond unless he keeps three handbreadths from his neighbor’s wall and lines it with lime.” If he lines it with lime, any distance is allowed. If he does not line it with lime, three handbreadths are required. This follows from the teaching, “Olive peat, manure, salt, lime, and rocks must be kept three handbreadths from his neighbor’s wall, or the wall must be lined with lime.” Here you say, because rocks generate heat. But there you say that they do not generate heat. Rabbi Yose said, in no case do rocks generate heat. The reason is that they loosen the earth and damage the ground around the wall.
It was stated: “If it was solid rock, it is permitted.” As we say, Rabbi Joḥanan left the synagogue and urinated behind the door. But we do not know whether it was because it was solid rock or because he suffered pain and could not bear it.
This refers to the grindstones used there, but for our grindstones, three handbreadths from the pine cone, which is four from the enclosure. “And an oven three handbreadths away at its base, which is four from its rim.” Rabbi Yudan bar Pazi said, from the outer rim inward. But the rabbis say, from the inner rim outward. If it was built like a dovecote, what are the rules? Let us learn from the following, “Rabbi Judah said, unless there are three handbreadths of insulating material under it, and one handbreadth for a stove.” Is a stove not built like a dovecote, and you say both above and below a handbreadth? Also here, both above and below a handbreadth.
Mishnah
2 A person should not put an oven in the house unless there is a space of four cubits above it. Or if he puts it on the upper floor unless there are three handbreadths of insulating material under it, and one handbreadth for a stove. But if he caused damage, he must pay for the damage. Rabbi Simeon said, they specified these measurements so that he would not be liable to pay if he caused any damage.
Halakhah
“A person should not put,” etc. It was stated: Nor a smithy. Rav Qarna stated: If he was a metalworker, or it was built originally as a smithy, it is permitted. How is it in front of his dwelling? Rabbi Aḥa said, certainly not in front of his dwelling. Rabbi Jonathan said, a person causing damage has no claim of undisturbed possession. Rabbi Joshua said, the rabbis object to permanent smoke. As in the following case, A woman was burning sand below the apartment of Rabbi Ilfay. He wanted to object to her. The case came before Rabbi Nasa who said, they said it only about continuous smoke.
Mishnah
3 A person may not open a bakery or a dye shop under the storage room of another person, nor an animal barn. They did permit it for wine, but not an animal barn. A person may object to a store in the courtyard and tell him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of people coming and going.” Someone who manufactures vessels has to take them out and sell them in the market. No one may object and tell him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer, the grindstone, or the children.”
Halakhah
“A person may not open,” etc. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa moved a preparer of fried food from one stall to another stall. One preparer of fried food lived below the apartment of Rabbi Eudaimon the brother of Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Aḥa passed by and did not object. He said, the rabbis pass by and do not object. Rabbi Aḥa got angry with him. Rabbi Eudaimon the brother of Rabbi Yose became seriously ill. Rabbi Yose came to visit him. He said, I will go and ask him. He went and said, if a court had mercy on someone would the court prepare shrouds for him?
A person sold his entire house. He reserved for himself one stone bench where he went and sat. The case came before Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose. They said, you have no right to go and sit there and observe who comes and goes in his house. A person sold half his house. He reserved a bake shop for himself. The case came before Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose. They said, you are coming to him. He is not coming to you, as the teaching states, “If the barn or the store preceded the storage room, he cannot object.”
It was stated: They did permit it for wine even though it reduces the quantity, because it improves the wine. Rav Hoshaiah when he heard this statement put his wine in the attic of the bathhouse. His wine became foul-smelling. He said, the Mishnah led me astray. But the Mishnah did not lead him astray. The smell of the bathhouse made his wine foul-smelling.
It was stated: Regarding his neighbor, he may change his mind. Once he accepted it, he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even after he accepted it, he can change his mind, because he can tell him, “They come and go here, looking for you and not finding you, and they increase traffic here.” Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He let him live in his house. Once he accepted it, he can no longer change his mind. Rav Huna said, one said, what is “his neighbor”? He opened a store for him. Once he accepted it, he can no longer change his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rabbi Meir, as we stated elsewhere, “Rabbi Meir says that in all these cases, even if he contracted with her, she can say ‘I thought that I could stand it. Now I cannot.’”
“No one may object and tell him, ‘I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer, the grindstone, or the children.’” The neighbors of those who teach boys and those who feed one another may object to what they are doing, because a neighbor can tell him, “They come and go here, looking for you and not finding you, and they increase traffic here.” Those people of Sepphoris can object to one another for nailing down their looms. Rabbi Abime bar Tobi instructed them to put one loom between two walls. Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula placed a sawhorse four cubits from the wall. Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, those pillars are weakened by the force of shouts. The wall of Ḥoms fell at the noise of the Persians’ arrows.
Mishnah
4 If someone’s wall was close to another’s wall he may not build his wall close by unless he moves it four cubits away. If there are windows, four cubits are required above, below, and at the same height.
Halakhah
“If someone’s wall was,” etc. In Rabbi Yannai’s school they said, the Mishnah speaks of those coming first to settle in a new town. Rabbi La said, the Mishnah speaks of a sealed wall. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks of a barricade wall. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the Mishnah says this, “If there are windows, four cubits are required above, below, and at the same height.” Four cubits above, so that he cannot stand and look in. Four cubits below, so that he cannot stand and look in. At the same height, so that he does not block the sides. It was taught, “The wall must be kept a window’s width from a window.”
Mishnah
5 A ladder must be kept four cubits from a dovecote so that a marten cannot jump across, and a wall four cubits from the gutter so that there is room to support a ladder. A dovecote must be kept fifty cubits from town. A person may not build a dovecote on his property unless he has fifty cubits in each direction. Rabbi Judah says, the area of four bet kor, the distance one sends a pigeon. But if he bought it even with the area of a quarter qab, he has the right to keep it.
Halakhah
“A ladder must be kept,” etc., until “he has the right to keep it.” Rabbi Eleazar said, that is, to the right side. But to the left he may put it up immediately.
Here, you say 50 cubits. But there, you say 30 stadia. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, they feed within fifty cubits; they fly even four mil.
Mishnah
6 A pigeon chick found within 50 cubits belongs to the owner of the dovecote. Farther away than 50 cubits it belongs to its finder. If it was found between two dovecotes, if it is closer to one of them, it belongs to that owner. If it is in the middle, both owners split it evenly.
Halakhah
“A pigeon chick found within 50 cubits,” etc. That is, if no public road runs between them. But not if a public road runs between them. This is learned from that, and that is learned from this. This is learned from that: if there were two, he has to announce it. That is learned from this: if there were three, it would belong to its finder.
Mishnah
7 A tree must be kept 25 cubits from a town, but a carob tree or sycamore 50 cubits. Abba Shaul says, every tree that does not bear fruit must be kept 50 cubits away. If the town existed before the tree, it is cut down without compensation. If the tree existed before the town, it is cut down with compensation. If it is uncertain which came first, it is cut down without compensation. A threshing floor must be kept 50 cubits from the town. A person must not make a threshing floor on his property unless he owns 50 cubits in each direction. He distances it from another’s orchards or plowed field so that he will not cause damage.
Halakhah
“A tree must be kept from a town,” etc. Even on his own property it is forbidden. Because it creates shadow where it stands or because its falling leaves are dangerous? What is the difference between them? If it stands on one’s own property. If you say, because it creates shadow where it stands, on his property it is permitted. But if you say, because its motion is dangerous, even on his property it is forbidden.
Mishnah
8 Carcasses, graves, and tanneries must be kept 50 cubits from the town, and one builds a tannery only to the east of a town. Rabbi Akiva says, one may build in any direction except to the west, and must keep 50 cubits away.
Halakhah
“Carcasses must be kept,” etc. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: To the place where one prepares the skins. In Rabbi Yannai’s school they said, up to the place where one might smell what he makes. It was taught this way, “Rabbi Akiva says, he may build it in any direction and must keep his distance, except to the west because that wind is frequent.” Rabbi Mana went to accompany a person afflicted with a skin disease. His father told him, “Do not walk to the east of him. Walk to the west of him.”
Mishnah
9 A soaking pond must be kept away from vegetables, leeks from onions, and mustard from bees. Rabbi Yose permits mustard.
Halakhah
“A soaking pond must be kept away,” etc. It was stated: An onion bed must be kept away from leeks, but Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon permits it. Rabbi Jacob ben Dosai said, from these teachings it follows that they have to keep their distance from one another. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Because the bees’ mouths become sharp and they destroy the honey.
Mishnah
10 A tree must be kept 25 cubits from a cistern, but a carob tree or sycamore 50 cubits, whether above it or level with it. If the cistern existed before, he must cut it down and pay for it. If the tree existed before, it must not be cut down. Rabbi Yose said, even if the cistern existed before, one shall not cut it down since one person digs on his property and the other plants on his property. A person should not plant a tree next to another’s field unless he keeps four cubits away from it, whether vines or any other tree. If there was a wall between them, each one goes close to the wall. If its roots extend to another’s field, he lowers the roots three handbreadths so that they do not obstruct the plow. If someone is digging a cistern, or a ditch, or a cavern, he cuts and excavates and the wood is his.
Halakhah
“A tree must be kept,” etc. “A person should not plant,” etc. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The rabbis’ reason is that civilization is based on cisterns. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Joshua answers the rabbis this way, just as you hold that civilization is based on cisterns, so I hold that civilization is based on trees.
Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Roots are irrelevant for First Fruits. Rabbi Yose said, he said it correctly. For if he had said that roots are important, nobody could ever bring First Fruits since the roots of one enter the other’s ground and vice versa. So Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Roots are irrelevant for First Fruits.
Mishnah
11 If a tree overhangs another’s field, he may cut it at the height of the plow’s oxgoad. A carob tree or sycamore may be cut along the plumb line. Over an irrigated field along the plumb line. Abba Shaul says, every tree that does not bear fruit along the plumb line. If a tree overhangs the public domain, one has to cut it so that a camel with a rider can pass. Rabbi Judah says, loaded with flax or bundles of vine cuttings. Rabbi Simeon says, any tree must be cut along the plumb line because of impurity.
Halakhah
“If a tree overhangs another’s field,” etc. “If a tree overhangs the public domain,” etc. Rabbi Jonathan was careful in judging; a Roman lived there who was his neighbor both in the field and at home. Rabbi Jonathan had a tree overhanging the Roman’s property. A similar case came before him. He told them, “Go and return tomorrow morning.” This Roman said, because of me he did not decide the case. Tomorrow I will leave my work and see how the judgment goes. If he judges all people and does not judge himself, he is not human. At nightfall, Rabbi Jonathan sent for his carpenter and told him, “Go and cut everything that overhangs the Roman’s property.” In the morning, the parties appeared before him. He told him, “Go and cut what overhangs his property.” The Roman said to him, “What about yours?” He told him, “Go and see. Do with yours what was done with mine.” He went out and looked. He said, “Praise the Jews’ God.”
A woman honored Rabbi Jonathan with figs. He told her, please, if you brought them covered, take them away covered. But if you brought them in the open, take them away in the open, so that people do not say that she brought him denars and he honored her with figs.
Rabbi Ḥanina brought Rabbi Jonathan to his garden and served him figs. When he left, he saw one tree of white benot shevaʿ. He asked him, why did you not let me eat from these? He told him, they are my son’s. Rabbi Ḥanina was afraid of robbing his son.
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabbi Simeon. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Everyone agrees that practice follows Rabbi Simeon.
Mishnah
1 A claim of undisturbed possession is established for houses, cisterns, ditches, and caverns, and bathhouses, and dovecotes, oil presses, irrigated land, and slaves, and everything that yields continuously by three full years of possession. The claim of undisturbed possession of an unirrigated field requires three years, but not three full years.
Halakhah
“The claim of undisturbed possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caverns,” etc. What is the basis for establishing claims of undisturbed possession? Rabbi Joḥanan said, we heard from those who went to Usha that they learned it from the notorious bull. Rabbi Yose said, who holds that a bull becomes notorious after three days? Was it not Rabbi Judah? As we stated there: “Rabbi Judah said, they said three years only for the case that if he is in Spain, he should be in possession for one year. They go and tell him during one year, and he returns within one year.”
Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If someone is selling a house to another, when he delivers the key the buyer takes possession. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If someone is selling a house to another, when the buyer stored produce there, he takes possession. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, only produce usually stored. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If someone is selling a cistern to another, when he handed over its pails the buyer takes possession. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: If someone sold a flock to another person, when the seller delivered the mashkokit, the buyer takes possession. What is mashkokit? Some say, the shepherd’s staff. But some say, a pandura. And some say, the bellwether. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Bar Kappara: If someone is selling a burial chamber to another, when the buyer buries one dead person there, that establishes a claim for the entire chamber. When he buries three dead people in three chambers, that establishes a claim for the entire burial cavern.
“And slaves.” Rabbi Simeon the brother of Rabbi Judah bar Zavdi in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, one needs two witnesses and his father and mother are like two witnesses. Rabbi Abbahu said, can a person be suspected of saying about someone who is not his son that he is his son? Maybe it was said about the property of a convert? He told him, but all our teachers in the Diaspora testify that we heard it in this form from Rav Ada bar Abuh. Rav Ḥisda said: That is, if the baby is not moving. But the case of a baby who is moving refers to what Rabbi Joḥanan said: property rights over jumping calves and lambs which move from place to place cannot be proven by possession.
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If two fields of a convert are involved, with a boundary strip between them. If he cut off from one of them with the intent of taking possession also of the other but not the boundary strip in between, the one was acquired by him but not the other. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Yasa: If he intended to acquire starting from the boundary strip and below? Rav Ḥisda said, property of a convert which he took possession of in the north by cutting off with the intent of also acquiring the one to the south, but did not have the intent of acquiring the strip in the middle, he acquired the one to the north but not the one to the south. There, we have stated: “If it was connected to the ground and he cut off anything, he acquired.” Samuel said, he acquired only what he cut off. Rabbi Eudaimon the Emigrant said, this was said concerning the property of a convert. Rav Ḥisda said, Rabbi Isaac: It was reported that this was said concerning the property of a convert, so it should present no difficulty for Samuel.
Rav Ḥisda said, “draw this animal close to you in order to take possession,” he took possession. “To take possession of its offspring,” he did not take possession. “To take possession of it together with its offspring,” he did take possession. Rabbi Nasa said, that is, if it was not pregnant. But if it was pregnant, they treated the fetus as one of its limbs, as we stated, Someone who sells the fetus of his animal to another person has accomplished nothing. Selling the future children of his slave girl to another person, he has accomplished nothing. Selling the tithes of his field to another person, he has accomplished nothing. Selling the airspace of his dry land to another person, he has accomplished nothing. But he may sell him an animal and reserve her fetus for himself, sell him a slave girl and reserve her children for himself, sell him a field and reserve the tithes for himself, sell him dry land and reserve the airspace for himself.
Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Three are believed immediately, a midwife, a caravan, and the one who purifies her colleagues. A midwife as long as the woman sits on the birthing chair, from the verse: “The midwife took and wound, etc.”Genesis 38:28 A caravan, as Rabbi Simeon, the brother of Rabbi Judah bar Zavdi, said in the name of Rav: As long as a baby lies in the public domain, either his father or his mother can testify about him. Once he has been collected from the public domain, two witnesses are needed. His father and mother may become its two witnesses. The one who purifies her colleagues is explained by what we stated elsewhere, “Three women sleep on one bed. If blood was found under one of them, all three are impure. If one of them examined herself and found herself impure, she is impure and the other two are pure.” Rabbi Abba said, only within 24 hours.
Mishnah
2 Rabbi Ishmael says, three months in the first and three months in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of eighteen months. Rabbi Akiva says, one month in the first and one month in the last with twelve months in the middle, for a total of fourteen months. Rabbi Ishmael said, when does this apply? To a grain field. But for an orchard, if he harvested his yield, gathered his olives, and collected his cut figs it counts for three years.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Ishmael says, the first three months,” etc. Samuel said, these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, three grain harvests, three grape harvests, and three olive harvests. Rav said, these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, three full years. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Just as they disagree here, so they disagree about Elijah’s years.
Mishnah
3 There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession: Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee. If he was in Judea and someone claimed undisturbed possession in Galilee, or in Galilee and someone claimed undisturbed possession in Judea, it is not undisturbed possession unless he is in the same province. Rabbi Judah said, they said three years only for the case that if he is in Spain, he should be in possession for one year. They go and tell him during one year, and he returns within one year.
Halakhah
“There are three regions for claims of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rav said, this was taught in emergency situations.
Rabbi Ḥanina said, the years of ʿorlah are in dispute between them.
Rav said, there can be no claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, nor can one be made from one country to another. Samuel said, there can be a claim of undisturbed possession from a fugitive, and a claim of undisturbed possession made from one country to another. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Isaac said, a verse supports what Samuel said: “The king assigned her an official,”2 Kings 8:6 etc.
Rabbi Eleazar said: Even two districts, for example, Shelomi and Neviro, separated by the Jordan where a person can see another taking possession of his field, no claim of undisturbed possession is established unless he was in the same locality, in the same province.
Rav said, the main confirmation of a claim of possession is storing the produce. Does Rav not agree about weeding and turning the soil? Rav agrees about weeding and turning the soil. What does it mean that Rav said, the main indication of a claim of possession is storing the produce? That if they saw him plowing, and harvesting, and binding sheaves, and threshing, and grading, but did not see him storing the produce, there is no claim of possession unless he stores the produce.
Rav said, the essence of ḥaliṣah is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rabbi Abba say in the name of Rav Judah, Rabbi Zeriqan reports it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she takes the shoe off but does not spit, or spits but does not take it off, the ḥaliṣah is invalid unless she takes it off and spits. Rav agrees “unless she takes it off and spits”; it is implied by what Rav said, the essence of taking it off is untying the shoelaces.
Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rabbi Joḥanan: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: a protest does not have to be filed before a court. But some say, Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked Rabbi Joḥanan’s student: Must a protest be filed before a court? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: a protest must be filed before a court. Samuel said, even if he protested against him in front of workers, it is a protest, but he has to protest in each of the three years. Giddul ben Minyamin had a case. His judges were Ḥilqiah bar Tobi, Rav Huna, and Ḥiyya bar Rav. Ḥiyya bar Rav told them, this is what my father said, Once he protested the first three years, he is not required to protest further. It was taught this way, “If he ate it as his own for six years, and the owner protested during the first three years, and then he said, you sold it to me, you gave it to me as a gift, there is no claim of undisturbed possession. Because of an initial claim it would have been a claim of undisturbed possession since any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession.” Samuel said, if it is so, nothing would be left for the leading people of the Land of Israel.
Mishnah
4 Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership is not a claim of undisturbed possession. How does this apply? He said to him, “What are you doing on my property?” “Nobody ever said anything to me” is not a claim of undisturbed possession. “You sold it to me” or “You gave it to me as a gift” is a claim of undisturbed possession. A person entering because of inheritance does not need a claim.
Halakhah
“Any claim of undisturbed possession not accompanied by a claim of legal ownership,” etc. But it needs proof of undisturbed possession. Elsewhere, we stated, “Rabbi Joshua agrees that if someone says to another, ‘this field’, etc.” As in the following case. Reuben ate from a field claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes the field from Reuben and hands it over to Simeon. Reuben went and brought witnesses that Simeon’s father did not die in possession. Rabbi Naḥman ben Jacob said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to him. Rav said, when you gave it to him, you gave it on the basis of a court decree. From then on the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Who informs? Rabbi Abba said, the witnesses to the death inform. Consider this, if the witnesses did not know! Rabbi Yose said, the field is always in the possession of its owner. From then on the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Mishnah
5 Partners and sharecroppers have no claim of undisturbed possession. A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property, nor a wife in her husband’s property, nor a father in his son’s property, nor the son in his father’s property. When does this apply? For one who claims undisturbed possession. But if one is given a gift, or brothers divide the estate, or someone takes possession of a convert’s property, locking, fencing in, or making any breach is a legal form of taking possession.
Halakhah
“Partners and sharecroppers,” etc. “A partner.” Samuel said, “partner” is not mentioned here. Does the partner not have a claim to undisturbed possession? Did not Samuel say that the partner who went and planted, planted with permission? When you say, the partner who went and planted, planted with permission, this applies if he was there. When you say, the partner has no claim of undisturbed possession, this applies if he was not there. What does he include in its place? Artisans and robbers have no claim of undisturbed possession. “If someone saw his slave at an artisan’s, or his garments at the washer’s, and told him, ‘Give me my slave, give me my garments,’ but he answered him, ‘You gave him to me as a gift’ or ‘You sold him to me,’ this is no claim of undisturbed possession. ‘You told me to sell him’ or ‘You instructed that he be given to me as a gift,’ this is a claim of undisturbed possession.”
“Sharecroppers.” Rav Huna said, a permanent sharecropper, but a temporary sharecropper has a claim of undisturbed possession. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both teach that even a temporary sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he is satisfied with him and let him have it. There, they say that a sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession but a sharecropper’s son has a claim of undisturbed possession. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish say, neither a sharecropper nor a sharecropper’s son has a claim of undisturbed possession, for we may say that he was satisfied with his father and let the son have it. As Rabbi Joḥanan said, a sharecropper who engaged another sharecropper has no claim of undisturbed possession since it is common for sharecroppers to engage subcontractors for sharecropping.
Really, should a man supervising his wife’s properties have a claim of undisturbed possession, since usually husbands supervise their wives’ properties? “A husband has no claim of undisturbed possession in his wife’s property” during her lifetime. But after her death he has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor a wife in her husband’s property” during his lifetime. But after his death she has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor a son in the father’s property” during his lifetime. But after the father’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession. “Nor the father in his son’s property” during his lifetime. But after the son’s death he has a claim of undisturbed possession.
Rav said, if he lowered it below ten handbreadths or raised it above ten. Samuel said, even if he made a breach at a place where a breach was irrelevant or a fence where a fence was irrelevant, this is a legal act of taking possession.
As we stated, If someone sells a field to another but the buyer delays taking possession and the seller then goes and legally takes possession, the taking possession invalidates the sale or the gift.
Mishnah
6 Two testify for him that he ate its yield for three years. If they are found perjured they pay everything to him. Two for the first year, two for the second, two for the third, pay together. Three brothers are joined by one other witness. These are three testimonies that count as one testimony.
Halakhah
“Two testify for him,” etc. One said to another “what are you doing in my field?” “For I have the years of undisturbed possession of it.” He went and brought witnesses that he had the years of undisturbed possession of it. The first one went and proved that the second one’s witnesses had committed perjury. He has to give him the field and the yield of three years.
Rabbi Zeira said, this implies that the perjurer is not disqualified by the court.
Mishnah
7 The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession and the following do not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. If someone puts his animals, an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone in a courtyard, or raises chickens, or puts his manure in a courtyard, it does not count for a claim of undisturbed possession. But if he makes an enclosure for his animals ten handbreadths high, or does the same for an oven, a cooking stove, or a grindstone, brings chickens into the house, or makes a place for his manure three handbreadths low or three high, this counts for a claim of undisturbed possession.
Halakhah
“The following count for a claim of undisturbed possession,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, co-owners usually permit chickens to one another. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah says otherwise: “Both of them are forbidden to put up there a grindstone or an oven, or to raise chickens there.” Rabbi Eleazar said, if someone raised chickens in a courtyard which is not his, it is taking possession. Rabbi Yose said, this is correct. On this understanding, if he has permission to raise chickens there, he raises them. If he does not have permission to raise them, it would be legally taking possession.
Mishnah
8 The drainpipe does not represent a right of possession. Its location represents a right of possession. The gutter represents a right of possession. An Egyptian ladder does not represent a right of possession. A Tyrian one represents a right of possession. An Egyptian window does not represent a right of possession. A Tyrian one represents a right of possession. What is an Egyptian window? Any window through which a man’s head cannot fit. Rabbi Judah says, if it has a wooden frame, it represents a right of possession even if a man’s head cannot enter.
Halakhah
“The drainpipe does not represent a right of possession.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, to lengthen and to widen it. Rabbi Joḥanan said, in all of that direction, as we stated, the gutter has a domain of four cubits. You have to say, in all this direction. Similarly, the drain tube does not represent a right of possession in all of this direction. It was taught this way, “The location of the drain tube does represent a right of possession, the location of its spout does not represent a right of possession.”
In Rabbi Yannai’s school they said, up to three steps it is like a chair. Rabbi La said in the name of Rabbi Yannai’s school, this refers to impurity. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said in the name of Rabbi Yannai’s school, this refers to rights of possession. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Yannai’s school, this refers to the Sabbath.
Rabbi Eleazar said, they said this only for a courtyard. But for roofs even higher than four cubits, he may prevent him. Rabbi Isaac said this before Rabbi Ḥanina, Rabbi Ḥanina said this before Rabbi Phinehas bar Ḥama: They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits, he may prevent him. Rabbi Hoshaiah heard this and was offended. He said, I formulated this teaching, but you did not attribute it to me, They said this only for a courtyard, but for roofs even higher than four cubits, he may prevent him.
Mishnah
9 A protrusion down to one handbreadth establishes a right of possession, but he can object. Less than a handbreadth does not establish a right of possession but he cannot object.
Halakhah
“A protrusion down to one handbreadth establishes a right of possession,” etc. Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Yannai: If the molding is up to one handbreadth wide he may extend it all the way, to draw it all the way. Nathan, Rabbi Hoshaiah: About one who divides his house.
Mishnah
10 A person may not open windows into the common courtyard. If he bought a house in another courtyard he may not open it into the common courtyard. If he built a second floor on top of his house he may not open it into the common courtyard but he may build a room inside his house or a second floor on top of his house provided that it is accessed from inside his house. In a common courtyard a person may not open a door opposite a door, a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may not enlarge it. If it was one, he may not make it double. But he may open into the public domain a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window. If it was small, he may enlarge it. If it was one, he may make it double.
Halakhah
“A person may not open windows,” etc. Here you say, a door opposite a door is permitted, and there you say, a door opposite a door is forbidden. Where you say it is permitted, that is in an alley. Where you say it is forbidden, that is in a condominium courtyard. But did we not state: “Just as the inhabitants of a courtyard may object to one another, so the inhabitants of an alley may object to one another”? Rabbi La said, here permission was given. There permission was not given. Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is a difference because gardens are usually dug into. Rabbi Nasa said, are ruins not to be rebuilt?
Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said that there, one states: If someone opens a window in the wall of someone else’s courtyard in the presence of the other, Rabbi says, he takes down with his left hand and closes with his right. Consider this, was he not standing there? He may tell him, I wanted to enjoy myself. If he handed him stones? He may tell him, I was making fun of this man.
If there were five openings one inside another, the measure of all of them is a drill hole. This supports what the builders say, that a window open above a stone bench is made only to let light in. Since it cannot represent a right of possession, it cannot bring impurity.
Mishnah
11 One must not dig hollows under the public domain, whether cisterns, ditches, or caves. Rabbi Eliezer permits if a cart filled with stones can pass over it. One does not build protrusions and balconies above the public domain but if he wants to he builds inside his own property and adds them. If someone bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, that remains a right of possession.
Halakhah
“One must not dig hollows,” etc. If they collapsed and he wants to rebuild. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he gave up his rights. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, he did not give up his rights. A Mishnah supports one, a baraita supports the other. A Mishnah supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “If a public road went through someone’s field and he took it and gave them on the side. What he gave remains given, but he did not acquire his own back.” A baraita supports Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “If someone bought a courtyard and there are protrusions and balconies, if they collapsed he rebuilds them based on his right of possession.”
Mishnah
1 One who sells a house did not sell the shed even if it opened into it, nor the room which is in its interior, nor the roof if it has a railing ten handbreadths high. Rabbi Judah says, if its entry point is shaped like a door it is not sold even if its railing is not ten handbreadths high.
Halakhah
“One who sells a house,” etc. Rabbi Naḥum in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if it is four by four cubits and ten handbreadths high, and only if it is roofed and waterproofed. Rabbi Zeira told them, did Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba explain all this to you?
“Nor the roof if it has a railing ten handbreadths high.” Does this apply only to a railing? What if it was surrounded by the back walls of houses, or there were pillars and wooden superstructures on top of them? Let us learn from the following: “Rabbi Judah says, if its entry point is shaped like a door it is not sold even if its railing is not ten handbreadths high.” They said, only if it has a railing ten handbreadths high.
Mishnah
2 Neither the cistern nor the cellar is sold, even though he wrote for him “its bottom and height,” and he has to buy himself access, the words of Rabbi Akiva, but the sages say that he does not have to buy himself access. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he said “except these,” he does not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rabbi Akiva said, he does not have to buy access, but the sages say, he has to buy access.
Halakhah
“Neither the cistern,” etc. Then why did he write “its bottom and height”? So that if he wants to dig down, he may dig down and if he wants to increase its height, he may increase its height. Rav Abba bar Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Akiva in our version which follows the rabbis in Rabbi Ḥiyya’s version. Rabbi Zeira, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Akiva in Rabbi Ḥiyya’s version which follows the rabbis in the Babylonians’ version.
There, they said: Admon and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi La said, they disagree when nothing was specified. What situation are we considering? If it is obvious that access was included, everybody agrees that he does not have to pay for access. If it is obvious that access was not included, everybody agrees that he has to pay for access. We must therefore be considering a case where nothing was specified. Then Rabbi Akiva said, he does not have to buy access, but the rabbis say, he does have to buy access.
Mishnah
3 Someone who sold a house sold the door but not the key. He sold a built-in mortar but not a movable one. He sold the pine cone but not the enclosure. He sold the oven and the cooking stove. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” everything is sold.
Halakhah
“Someone who sold a house,” etc. The Mishnah reads as follows: He sold the hewn mortar but not the affixed one.
Mishnah
4 Someone who sells a courtyard sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” everything is sold. In neither case did he sell the bathhouse or the olive press standing in it. Rabbi Eliezer says, someone who sells a courtyard only sold its airspace.
Halakhah
“Someone who sells a courtyard,” etc. Rabbi Isaac asked: According to the rabbis, someone who sells a courtyard without specifications sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movable objects? Rabbi Isaac asked: According to Rabbi Eliezer, someone who sells a courtyard without specifications only sold the airspace. But if he said, “it and all it contains,” he sold houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves but nothing movable. Or maybe he also sold movable objects? Rabbi Joḥanan said, I brought the following from the House of Levi: “If there were stores open to the inside, they are sold. If they open to the outside, they are not sold. If they open both to the inside and to the outside, they are all sold.”
Mishnah
5 Someone who sells an olive-press building sold the lower stone of the olive mill, the upper stone, and the scaffolding for the beam of the press, but he sold neither the planks, nor the wheel, nor the beam. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” everything is sold. Rabbi Eliezer said, someone who sells an olive-press building sold the beam.
Halakhah
“Someone who sells an olive-press,” etc. In fact, if it does not have a beam, it is not called an olive press. You would say, who stated this? Rabbi Eliezer, since it was stated in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: “Someone who sells an olive-press building sold the vats, the basket weaves, and the breakstones, and the lower millstone but not the upper one, nor the sacks nor the bags it contains. But if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains, ...’ In neither case did he sell the paved space surrounding the building, or the ditches, or the cellars.”
Mishnah
6 Someone who sells a bathhouse sold neither the planks nor the stools, nor the bath utensils. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” everything is sold. In neither case did he sell the storage ponds of water or the stores of wood.
Halakhah
“Someone who sells a bathhouse,” etc. It was stated: “Someone who sells a bathhouse sold the inner and the outer rooms, the basilica, the heating chamber, and the storekeeper’s chamber, but not the chests nor the boiler. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, the place of the bath attendant is sold. The place of the storekeeper is not sold. But if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’? Even if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains.’ In neither case did he sell the water ponds which he uses both in summer and in winter or the room in which wood is stored. But if he said to him, ‘it and all its accessories,’ all these are sold.”
Mishnah
7 Someone who sells a village sold houses, cisterns, ditches and caverns, bathhouses and dovecotes, the oil press and irrigated lots but not movable objects. But if he said to him, “it and all that is in it,” even if there were animals and slaves there, all of them are sold. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, someone who sells a village sold the steward.
Halakhah
“Someone who sells a village,” etc. It was stated: “Someone who sells a village. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, someone who sells a village sold the steward but did not sell the administrator. But if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains’? Even if he said to him, ‘it and all it contains.’ In neither case did he sell sirah and its dependent settlements, and hard rocks hewn from it, and preserves of wild animals, birds, and fish.” Sirah means outlying houses, dependent settlements are hamlets. As for its share in the ocean or a river, some tannaim state that it is sold, and some state that it is not sold. Rav Ḥisda said, the one who says it is sold refers to a share within its boundaries. The one who says it is not sold refers to a share outside its boundaries.
Mishnah
8 Someone who sells a field sold the stones which are needed for it, and the posts in a vineyard which are needed for it, and grain standing on the ground, and a reed fence taking up less than a bet rovaʿ, and a watchman’s hut not made with mortar, and a carob tree not yet grafted, and a virgin sycamore tree. But he sold neither the stones which are not needed for it, nor the posts in a vineyard which are not needed for it, nor grain harvested from the ground. But if he said to him, “it and all it contains,” everything is sold. In no case did he sell either a reed fence taking up more than a bet rovaʿ, or a watchman’s hut made with mortar, or a grafted carob tree, or an anvil sycamore tree. Neither the cistern, nor the wine press, nor a dovecote whether deserted or intact. And he has to buy himself access, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say that he does not have to buy himself access. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if he said “except these,” he does not have to buy himself access. If he sold them to another person, Rabbi Akiva said, he does not have to buy access, but the sages say, he does have to buy access. When does this apply? For the seller. But one who gives a gift, gives everything. Brothers who divided an inheritance: if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of a convert’s property: if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything. Rabbi Simeon says that someone who dedicated a field to the Temple only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an anvil sycamore tree.
Halakhah
“Someone who sells a field,” etc. “But he sold neither,” etc. “Neither the cistern,” etc. “If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple,” etc. In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, poles for vines. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Elder asked, if there were split rings to select? Rabbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked, if there were marble plates for walls? Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Ishmael asked: If there were split rods to frame windows?
Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A vegetable bed which is six by six handbreadths and has its own name is not sold. Rabbi Joḥanan said: There is disagreement between Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose and the rabbis about one who bought an anvil sycamore on another’s property. Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose says, he acquired the land. The rabbis say, he did not acquire. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: What if somebody sold all the trees but reserved an anvil sycamore for himself? In the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose, he acquired the land. In the opinion of the rabbis, he did not acquire the land. Rabbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If somebody sold all the trees and an olive tree at a certain place, are all the olive trees at that place sold? Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Ishmael asked: If somebody bought three groups of reeds, did he buy the greatest cedar in the Land of Israel?
“When does this apply? For the seller. But one who gives a gift gives everything.” What is the difference between a seller and the giver of a gift? Rabbi Abba bar Tebelai in the name of Rav: Because the giver of a gift is usually generous. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because buyers care about small details. What is the difference between these opinions? A dedication to the Temple. The one who says, because the giver of a gift is usually generous, the person making a vow to the Temple is also usually generous. But the one who says, because buyers care about small details, what does he say about a dedication to the Temple? Let us learn from the following: “Brothers who divided an inheritance, if one acquired a field he acquired everything. Somebody taking possession of the property of a convert acquired it; if he took possession of a field, he took possession of everything. If somebody dedicated a field to the Temple, he dedicated everything. Rabbi Simeon says that someone who dedicated a field to the Temple, only dedicated a grafted carob tree and an old sycamore tree.” Because they draw nourishment from Temple property. Because he reserved access for himself? If he had not reserved access for himself, would they not draw nourishment from Temple property?
Mishnah
1 Someone who sells a ship sold the mast, and the sail, and the anchors, and all steering gear, but he neither sold the slaves, nor the storage bags, nor the load. If he said, “it and all that is in it,” everything is sold. Someone who sold a wagon did not sell the mules. Someone who sold the mules did not sell the wagon. Someone who sold the yoke did not sell the cattle. Someone who sold the cattle did not sell the yoke. Rabbi Judah says, the price is an indicator. How is that? If he said to him, sell me your yoke and harness for 200 denars, it is obvious that yoke and harness are not worth 200 denars. But the sages say, the price is no indicator. Someone who sells a donkey did not sell its gear. Nahum the Mede says, he sold the gear. Rabbi Judah says, sometimes it is sold, sometimes it is not sold. How is this? If a donkey was standing there with his gear on it and he said, sell me this donkey, his gear is sold. If he said, “your donkey,” the gear is not sold. Someone who sells a donkey sold the foal. Someone who sold a cow did not sell its young. Someone who sold a dungheap sold the manure. Someone who sold a cistern sold its water. Someone who sold a beehive sold the bees. Someone who sold the dovecote sold the pigeons. Someone who bought the yield of a dovecote leaves the first brood to fledge. Someone who bought the yield of a beehive takes three swarms and then takes them intermittently. Someone who bought honeycombs leaves two honeycombs. Someone who bought olive trees to cut down leaves two handbreadths.
Halakhah
“Someone who sells a ship,” etc. It was stated: Someone who sells a ship sold the ladder and the water tank in it but did not sell the sleeping gear, nor the mats, nor the barge nor the rowboat. Symmachus says, he sold the fishing boat.
The conditions which Joshua imposed. Rabbi Levi ben Birai in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: four. One may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where doing so is forbidden as theft. There, we have stated: “Or fenugreek where grasses appeared, one does not require him to weed.” The Mishnah reads as follows: One does not require him to uproot. As one of Joshua’s conditions you say, one may collect grasses everywhere except from a field of fenugreek where doing so is forbidden as theft. This implies that he does not want the grasses. He said, there if he sowed it to make sheaves, but here when he sowed it for seeds. Did Joshua make conditions for the benefit of sinners? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: He would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him. He also mentions a vineyard, as Rabbi Yannai said: all spontaneous growth is forbidden except for what appears on a fallow field, or a field ready to be plowed under, a vineyard or a field grown for seeds. A fallow field, for he does not care. A field ready to be plowed under, for he wants to improve his field. A vineyard, not to forbid his vineyard. A field grown for seeds, because he does not want the growth. And if you say he does, he would like it if they were uprooted and lying before him.
There, we have stated: “If somebody finds a corpse in original position, lying as usual, he takes him and his surroundings.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation, since we have stated: “he takes him and his surroundings.” And how much? Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Up to three finger-breadths, the place where fluid penetrates. Rabbi Zeira says, this is not reasonable. It is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation. If you say, it is permitted to remove him, since you are going to ruin the whole field, would it be permitted to remove him? Since it is obvious for the Tanna that it is forbidden to remove a corpse of obligation, therefore, one needs the Mishnah. Rav Ḥisda said, this follows the one who said that it is permitted to remove a corpse of obligation. I say that he was buried on a permitted path. But would one not have to worry that maybe he was a corpse of obligation? Corpses of obligation are infrequent.
One walks on permitted paths from the moment the harvest is cleared up to the second rainfall, and one may take shoots to plant from everywhere except from olive trees and vines. From olive trees from the very young and the very old, but if it was like a ṭargul even from the very young it is forbidden.
Rabbi Tanḥum from Kefar Gun in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose: Four. One collects grasses from everywhere on condition that one not uproot. And one relieves himself behind a wall. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: Up to a place where he passes gas and is not heard. And one grazes in forests, even the tribe of Judah in the tribe of Naphtali, and one gives Naphtali an entire region south of the lake, as it is said, “lake and south of it he inherits,”Deuteronomy 33:23 the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says, “lake” is Lake Samokhonites, “and south” is Lake Tiberias. And one may step to one side. Rav Judah in the name of Rav: Even into a field full of saffron. How? Does one have to pay or not? Since Rav Judah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one pays. Rabbi La said, since Rav Judah said, even into a field full of saffron, that means, one does not pay. But one cannot deviate more than necessary. Let us learn from the following: Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Joshua were on the road and stepped aside because of obstacles on the road when they saw Judah ben Pappos, who was sinking, coming toward them. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Joshua: Who is this one who makes an exhibition of himself? He answered: This is Judah ben Pappos, all whose deeds are done for Heaven’s sake.
Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: If one wants to build a new village, one gives him four roads to the four directions of the compass. Rabbi Ḥanina asked Rabbi Mana, how? From four cubits to eight or from eight to sixteen? He told him, from eight to sixteen so that one wagon may leave and the other come.
Mishnah
2 Someone who buys two trees on another’s property did not acquire the land. Rabbi Meir says, he acquired the land. If they grew, he need not cut them. What grows from the stem is his, what grows from the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. If they died, he has no land. If he bought three, he bought the land. If they grew, he has to cut them. What grows from the roots is his. If they died, he has the land.
Halakhah
“Someone who buys two trees on another’s property,” etc. In Rabbi Yannai’s school they said, what sees the shadow is root, what sees the sun is stem. Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Yose: What grows from its roots and its stem is root, from its stem but not its roots is tree. Rabbi Joḥanan said, someone who buys three trees buys the land in between them, under them, and a strip outside them the width of the harvester and his bag. Rabbi Eleazar said, while he has no access, he has a strip outside them the width of the harvester and his bag.
Mishnah
3 Someone who sells the head of a large animal did not sell the feet. If he sold the feet he did not sell the head. If he sold the windpipe he did not sell the liver. If he sold the liver he did not sell the windpipe. But for a small animal, if he sold the head he sold the feet. If he sold the feet he did not sell the head. If he sold the windpipe he sold the liver. If he sold the liver he did not sell the windpipe.
Halakhah
“Someone who sells the head of a large animal,” etc. Rabbi Isaac asked: If he sold half of the head, did he sell half of the legs? If he sold half of the windpipe, did he sell half of the liver? If he sold half of the liver, did he sell half of the windpipe? Let us learn from the following: “If he sold him the entire foot, the entire head, the entire intestines, he gives to the priest and does not deduct from the price. If he bought by weight, he gives to the priest and deducts from the price.”
Mishnah
4 Four situations for sellers. If one contracted to sell high quality wheat and it turned out to be low quality, the buyer may cancel the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be high quality, the seller may cancel the contract. Low quality and it turned out to be low quality, high quality and it turned out to be high quality, neither of them may cancel the contract. Brown grain and it turned out to be white grain, white grain and it turned out to be brown grain, olive wood and it turned out to be sycamore wood, sycamore wood and it turned out to be olive wood, wine and it turned out to be vinegar, vinegar and it turned out to be wine, either of them may cancel the contract. If somebody sold produce to another and this one moved it without measuring, he took possession. If he was measuring without moving, he did not take possession. If he is intelligent, he rents its place. If somebody buys flax from another he did not take possession until he moved it from place to place. But if it still was standing on the ground and he plucked anything, he took possession. If somebody sold wine or oil to another and it rose or fell in price, if it was before the measure was filled it is for the seller, after the measure was filled for the buyer. If a broker was involved and the amphora broke, it broke for the broker. He is obligated to let it drip three drops. If he tilted and emptied it, the remainder is for the seller. The grocer does not have to let it drip three drops. Rabbi Judah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable.
Halakhah
“Four situations for sellers,” etc. How is this? If the measuring vessel belonged to the seller, he has the property rights, if to the buyer, he has the property rights. Rav Judah in the name of Samuel, Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Judah the Great, the Mishnah reads as follows: If the measuring vessel belonged to a third person. It was stated: Rabbi Judah says, Friday evenings close to sundown he is not liable since he has permission, but the sages say, in any case he is liable. What is the reason for what Rabbi Judah said? “If he is hired, it is paid for by his wages.”Exodus 22:14
Mishnah
5 Somebody sent his son to a grocer who measured him oil for an assarius and he gave him the assarius. If he broke the flask and lost the assarius, the grocer is liable. Rabbi Judah holds him not liable since for that he sent him. The sages agree with Rabbi Judah that if the flask was in the child’s hand and the grocer measured into the flask, the grocer is not liable. The wholesaler cleans his measuring vessels once every thirty days, the householder every twelve months. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, it is the other way around. The retail grocer cleans his measuring vessels twice a week, wipes his weights clean once a week, and cleans his scales after each weighing. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when does this apply? For fluids, but for dry matter it is not necessary. He has to let the scales bend down a handbreadth. If he weighed strictly by eyesight he has to give him surplus, one tenth for fluids and one twentieth for dry products. Where people customarily use small measures, he should not use large ones. Where they use large measures, he should not use small ones. Where they level the measure, he must not heap it up. Where they heap it up, he must not level it.
Halakhah
“Somebody sent his son to a grocer,” etc. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, for the tenths he has to let bend down a handbreadth. It is written: “Fair scales, fair weights.”Leviticus 19:36 From here the sages said that the court is not instructed to enforce any commandment whose reward is stated. “You shall have,”Deuteronomy 25:15 appoint market overseers over this. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the baraita reads as follows: The court is not punished for failing to enforce any commandment whose reward is stated. Rav was appointed market overseer by the Head of the Diaspora. He intervened about measuring vessels but not prices. The Head of the Diaspora jailed him. Rav Qarna went to see him and said, the market overseer about whom they spoke was for measures but not prices. He answered, but you had stated: the market overseer is for both measures and prices. He said to him, go out and tell them, the market overseer is for measures but not prices. He went out and said to them, They send a person who teaches hidden things to jail!
Where people customarily use small measures, he should not use large ones. Where they use large measures, he should not use small ones. Where they level the measure, he must not heap it up. Where they heap it up, he must not level it.
Mishnah
1 If somebody sells grain to another and it did not sprout, or even flax seed, he is not responsible for it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, for garden seeds which are not edible he is responsible. If somebody sells produce to another he has to accept a quarter qab of chaff per seʾah. For figs he has to accept ten worm-bitten ones per hundred. With a wine cellar he has to accept ten sour ones per hundred. With vessels in the Sharon he has to accept ten pitassaot per hundred. If somebody sells wine to another and it turned into vinegar, he is not responsible for it. But if it was known that his wine turns into vinegar, it is a purchase made in error. If he told him, “I am selling you spice wine,” it has to keep until Pentecost. “Old” is from the year before, “aged” from three years.
Halakhah
“If somebody sells grain to another,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody sells grain to another and it did not sprout, even flax seed, he is not responsible for it. But if he specified from the start that it was for seed, he is liable. What does he pay him? The value of the seeds. Some say, he gives him his expenses.”
Here, he has to accept it, but there the quantity should be reduced. Here only chaff, but there another kind. Here only the way he touched it, but there only the way he carried it. Here Rabbi Simeon agrees, but there, Rabbi Simeon says they are two kinds and do not count together.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: One seʾah of wheat which fell into one hundred of barley, do the priest and the Israelite split the increase in value? Rabbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: One seʾah of the priestly portion which fell into one hundred of ordinary grain, do the seller and the buyer split the remainder? Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, let us learn from the following: Someone who takes out impurities from his neighbor’s heap has to give him good grain in their place.
Rabbi Abun bar Kahana said, if he said, “Collect and acquire.” But if it was collected from the start, this does not apply.
It was stated: “100 amphoras I am selling to you, he has to deliver wine of the quality customarily sold in this place. 100 amphoras of wine I am selling to you, he has to deliver wine of the quality customarily sold in this store. These 100 amphoras I am selling to you, even if they were vinegar they are delivered.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: If the vessels belonged to the buyer, he may tell him: I sold it to you for immediate consumption.
If someone checked an amphora in order to keep giving the priestly portion from it, for up to three days its status is certain. After that it is in doubt. Rabbi Simeon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it is certainly wine, the last vinegar. The middle ones are in doubt. Rabbi Abbahu said, I heard this from him. What does Rabbi Joḥanan say and do? For three days its status is certain. After that it is in doubt. Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Yasa in the name of the rabbis, who come and hear from the House of Study of Bar Iṭyan, similar to the statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi about an amphora. What if he lost a smooth needle and then found it rusty? Rabbi Simeon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The first three days it is certainly impure, the last pure. The middle ones are in doubt. Rabbi Abbahu said, I also heard that from him. What does Rabbi Joḥanan say and do? For the first three days its status is certain. After that it is in doubt. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If he came at the end of 40 days and found it clearly to be vinegar, did it clearly become vinegar immediately or only from that moment in the future? Rabbi Isaac asked: If the crucial time passed at the end of forty days, did the importance of the crucial time invalidate that of forty days or did the importance of forty days invalidate that of the crucial time?
Rabbi Crispus asked: Does he check every year or only once every three years? Let us learn from the following: If somebody sells wine for a year, he has to guarantee it until after Tabernacles. Rabbi Yudan said, explain it for those Galileans who only harvest after Tabernacles and you cannot deduce anything. That is what was said, “old from the preceding year, aged three years,” should we say because of the tasting? May one check one amphora on which all others depend, or does he have to check every single one whether they would not turn into vinegar? Rabbi Shammai said, there are people who knock on the barrel at the top and know what is inside.
Mishnah
2 If somebody sells a plot to another to build a house, or he contracts to build him a wedding building for his son, a residence for his widowed daughter, he builds four by six cubits, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says, this is a cowshed. If one wants to build a cowshed, he builds four by six cubits, a small room six by eight, a large one eight by ten, a dining hall ten by ten, and its height equal to half its length and width. The reason is the Temple and its walls. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a building like the Temple?
Halakhah
“If somebody sells a plot to another,” etc. It was stated: “For a large house he must provide him with twelve by twelve cubits.”
Rav Hamnuna the scribe asked Rabbi Ḥanina: One verse says, “its height thirty cubits,”1 Kings 6:2 and another verse says, “its height twenty cubits.”1 Kings 6:20 He had never heard this and they could not give him an answer. He asked Rabbi Jeremiah, who told him, from the ground up thirty cubits, from the inner room up twenty cubits. Rabbi Abbahu said, destroy the inner room! The inner room was standing from the ground to the beams, as it is written, “covered with cedar from the ground to the beams.”1 Kings 6:16 But from the ground up thirty cubits, from the Cherub up twenty cubits. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, it is an aggadic tradition that the space in the inner room is not counted. Rabbi Levi said, the space occupied by the Ark is not counted. Rabbi Levi said, and it was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Rabbi Illai, the Ark stands in the middle and divides the room, ten cubits in every direction of the compass.
Mishnah
3 If somebody has a cistern inside another’s house, he may enter at times when people usually enter and must leave when people usually leave. He cannot bring his animal and let it drink from his cistern but draws water and lets it drink outside. Each of them makes a lock for himself. If somebody has a vegetable garden inside another’s vegetable garden, he may enter at times when people usually enter and must leave when people usually leave. He cannot bring traders inside and cannot use it to go to another field. The outside owner may sow on the path. If he was allowed a path on the side by common accord, he may enter any time he wishes and leave any time he wishes. He can bring traders inside but cannot use it to go to another field. Neither owner may sow on it.
Halakhah
“If somebody has a cistern,” etc. It was stated: The outer one cannot sow on the path because the other can tell him, I would walk on slippery ground. The inner one cannot sow on the path because the other can tell him, you would take care of yours and step on mine.
Mishnah
4 If a public road passed through somebody’s field and he took it away and gave the public a road at the side of his property, what he gave remains given, but he did not acquire the road he wanted for himself. A private way is four cubits wide, a public way sixteen cubits. A king’s highway has no limit. The way to the cemetery has no limit. The place for funeral orations, the judges of Sepphoris say an area of four qab. If somebody sells a plot to another to build a grave, or he contracts to build him a grave, he makes the cavity of the cavern four cubits by six and opens into it eight burial chambers, three on each side and two at the back wall. The chambers are four cubits long, seven handbreadths high and six handbreadths wide. Rabbi Simeon says, he makes the cavity of the cavern six by eight cubits and opens into it thirteen burial chambers, four on each side, three at the back wall, one to the right of the entrance and one to its left. In front of the cavern he excavates a courtyard of six by six cubits for the bier and its carriers. He opens into it two caverns, one at each side. Rabbi Simeon says four, each to each direction of the compass. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, all depends on the rock.
Halakhah
“If a public road passed through somebody’s field,” etc., to the end of the Mishnah. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, he makes them like keyholes. Rabbi Joḥanan told him, but dogs are not buried in that way! What does he do? He builds inside as if outside. Do the crossings not interfere with one another? They do not cross. He builds one higher and one lower.
Mishnah
1 If somebody says to another: I am selling you a bet kor of dust, if there were depressions ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not included in the measurement. If they are smaller than that, they are included in the measurement. But if he said, about a bet kor of dust, if there were depressions deeper than ten handbreadths or rocks higher than ten handbreadths, they are measured with it.
Halakhah
“If somebody says to another: I am selling you a bet kor of dust,” etc. Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rovaʿ is not measured with it. If it is in the middle, it is measured. If it is at the side, it is not measured. What is a side and what is in the middle? In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, any place surrounded by a plowed area is in the middle. Any place not surrounded by a plowed area is to the side. Rabbi Yose came in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If it was a majority on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes a smaller part, and it is measured with it. How wide? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, up to four cubits. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, up to ten handbreadths. If there was a depression ten handbreadths deep but less than four wide, what is the rule? Let us learn from the following statement by Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “Only if it is the smaller part of his field and enclosed in it. And a rock with a total surface area of a bet rovaʿ is not measured with it. If it was split, it is measured with it.” This means that if the greater part of it was on one side, but if you spread it, it becomes the smaller part and is not measured with it. If there was a long depression which added up to a bet rovaʿ? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: If it was shaped like sticks, is it measured with it or not? Rabbi Yudan bar Ishmael asked: If it was like marble plates, is it measured with it or not? Rabbi Isaac bar Tebelai asked: If it was formed like chairs, does he measure from the place of its wall or does he measure from its slope? Rav Huna in the name of Rav, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Only if the total agricultural area was four bet kor.
Mishnah
2 “I am selling you a bet kor of dust measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape,” if a little is missing, he deducts it. If there is a little extra, he has to refund it. If he said “more or less,” even if it was deficient by a quarter qab per seʾah or over by a quarter qab per seʾah, he received it. For more than that, one calculates the difference. What does he return? Money. But if he agreed, he returns land to him. Then why did they say, he returns money to him? To protect the seller’s rights, for if this one retained for himself a space for nine qab, or in a vegetable garden the space for half a qab, or following Rabbi Akiva a bet rovaʿ, he returns land to him. He has to return all the excess, not just the quarter qab.
Halakhah
“I am selling you a bet kor of dust,” etc. Here, you say that “he has received it.” But there, you say that “he has to return all the excess, not just the quarter qab”? They said, since you exclude him from the rule of “less than measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape” you return him to the rules of “by the surveyor’s measuring tape.”
Mishnah
3 “Measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape, more or less;” “more or less” invalidated “measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape.” “More or less, measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape,” “measured by the surveyor’s measuring tape” invalidated “more or less,” the words of Ben Nannas. “By its description and its boundary strips,” if the difference is less than one sixth, he accepts it. At one sixth, he must deduct it.
Halakhah
“What does he return? Money,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If somebody sells a slave to another and he turns out to be a thief or a gambler, he received him. But if he was a robber or outlawed by the government, he did not receive him.
“If somebody says to another: I am selling you half a field,” etc. Rabbi Huna said, he must deduct the sixth itself.
Mishnah
4 If somebody says to another: I am selling you half a field, they assess the field together and he takes half of his field. “I am selling you its southern part,” they assess the field together and he takes the southern half. He has to accept the place of the wall, the trench or the small trench. How much is a trench? Six handbreadths. And the small trench, three.
Halakhah
It was stated: If somebody says to another: I am selling you half a field, and X and Y and half of Z surround you. Rav Huna, and Rav Judah, and Rabbi Jeremiah. One said, he gives him an area shaped like a pandur. And one said, he gives him something like a strip of cloth. And one said, he gives him something like patches.
Mishnah
1 Some inherit and bequeath. Some inherit but do not bequeath, some bequeath but do not inherit, and some neither inherit nor bequeath. The following inherit and bequeath: The father from the sons, and the sons from the father, and the paternal brothers inherit and bequeath. A man from his mother, a man from his wife, and the sons of sisters inherit but do not bequeath. A woman to her son, a woman to her husband, and the mother’s brothers bequeath but do not inherit. But the maternal brothers neither inherit nor bequeath. The order of inheritances is the following: “If a man dies without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.”Numbers 27:8 The son precedes the daughter and all the son’s descendants come before the daughter. The daughter precedes the brothers and all the daughter’s descendants precede the brothers. The brothers precede the father’s brothers and all their descendants precede the father’s brothers. This is the principle: For everyone preceding in inheritance, his descendants precede. But the father precedes all his descendants.
Halakhah
“Some inherit and bequeath,” etc. It is written: “If a man dies without a son, you shall transfer his estate to his daughter.”Numbers 27:8 Rabbi Ishmael stated: The verse distinguished this inheritance from all other inheritances mentioned in the Torah, since for all of them it is written “you shall give,” but here is written: “you shall transfer.” It is an extension of the law that the daughter shall inherit. The Gentile sages say, son and daughter are equal, for they explain “if he has no son.” Therefore, if he has one both are equal. One objected, is it not written “if he has no daughter.”Numbers 27:9 Therefore, if he has one are both equal? And you agree, if there is no child, here also, if there is no son. The Sadducees say, the son’s daughter and the daughter are equal, for they explain: Since my son’s daughter who comes through her father does inherit from me, would it not be logical that my daughter who comes through myself should inherit from me? One told them, no. If you mention the son’s daughter who only inherits by the power of the brothers, what could you say about the daughter who only inherits by the power of the old man? The verse says, “any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes.”Numbers 36:8 How is it possible for a daughter to inherit from two tribes? Explain it as a case where her father was from one tribe and her mother from another.
So far the son inherits from the father. The father from the son? Since the son only inherits by the father’s power, is it not logical that the father on whom the son depends should inherit from him? The verse says, “close”Numbers 27:11; the closer relative has precedence.
So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument from the lesser case to the greater. Does the son precede the daughter? Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Zechariah the butcher’s son: So did Rabbi Simeon ben Judah say in the name of Rabbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe. Rabbi Mallukh in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabbi Zechariah. Rabbi Yannai the Cappadocian had a case. The judges were Rav Huna, Rabbi Judah ben Pazi, and Rabbi Aḥa. Rabbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice. In particular they rely on Rabbi Mallukh in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rabbi Simeon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rabbi Zechariah. Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rabbi Zechariah. Rabbi Eleazar the father of Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rabbi Zechariah. Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rabbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,”Numbers 36:8 what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave. That man does not want to listen to words of instruction.
“A man from his mother, a man from his wife.” Is “a man from his mother” not the same as “a man from his wife”? Rabbi Isaac: he wanted to enumerate all cases and did not find them, so he stated the rule in two parts.
“Son.” Not only a son, how do we include a daughter’s son? The verse says, “a son,” from anywhere. “Daughter.” Not only a daughter, how do we include a daughter’s son, a son’s daughter, a daughter’s daughter, or a son’s son? The verse says, “a daughter,” from anywhere. “Brothers.” Not only brothers, how do we include brothers’ sons, brothers’ daughters, or brothers’ sons’ daughters? The verse says, “his flesh’s relatives,” from anywhere.
Mishnah
2 Zelophehad’s daughters took three parts in inheritance: Their father’s share as one of those who left Egypt, his part among his brothers in the estate of Hepher, and because he was firstborn he was taking two parts.
Halakhah
“Zelophehad’s daughters,” etc. Zelophehad’s daughters said before our teacher Moses: If we are Zelophehad’s daughters, we should inherit from our father. If we are not Zelophehad’s daughters, let our mother enter levirate marriage. Immediately, “he brought their suit before the Eternal.”Numbers 27:5 The Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “Zelophehad’s daughters speak correctly. Give them possession of inheritance,”Numbers 27:7 give them real estate, give them movable property, give them their father’s part among their father’s brothers.
Rabbi Josiah said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt, as it is written: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes they shall inherit.”Numbers 26:55 Then why does the verse say: “To those”? Only because of women and because of children. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Land was distributed to those who entered the Land, as it was said, “to those it shall be distributed.”Numbers 26:53 Then why does the verse say: “By the names of the fathers’ tribes”? This inheritance was different from all other inheritances in the world. For in all other inheritances in the world the living inherit from the dead but here the dead inherit from the living. It was stated: Rabbi Joshua ben Qorha said, the Land was distributed to those who left Egypt and to those who stood in the plains of Moab. How is that? If one was both of those who left Egypt and those who stood in the plains of Moab, he took two parts. Of those who left Egypt but not of those who stood in the plains of Moab, or of those who stood in the plains of Moab but not of those who left Egypt, he took one part. The daughters of Zelophehad took five parts: their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. And because he was a firstborn they took two parts. And their father’s part among his brothers. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says otherwise. But “giving you shall give them inheritance among their father’s brothers.”Numbers 27:7 That is what is written: “Ten measures fell to Manasseh.”Joshua 17:5
Joshua and Caleb took three parts: Their part with those who left Egypt and their part with those who stood in the plains of Moab. In addition they took the parts of the spies. This is what is written: “Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh lived off the men, etc.”Numbers 14:38 But the part of the complainers and Korah’s gang became common property. Their sons inherited from their paternal and maternal grandfathers. That is what is written: “Korah’s sons did not die.”Numbers 26:11
Rabbi explained it with a parable. To what can this be compared? To two brothers, co-owners who left Egypt. One had nine sons, the other a single son. They inherited ten bet kor. Each of them takes a letekh. They return it to their fathers and then split. It turns out that the single son takes half and the sons of the other take half.
Rabbi Dositheos ben Judah explained it with a parable. To what can this be compared? To two brothers, priests and co-owners who stood by a threshing floor. One had nine sons and the other had one. They took ten qab. They returned it to their father and split. It turns out that the son of one takes half and the sons of the other take half.
Rabbi Joḥanan objected: “I shall bring you to your ancestors’ land, etc.”Exodus 6:8 If it was a gift, why an inheritance? And if an inheritance, why a gift? But after he gave it to them as a gift, he turned around and gave it as inheritance. Rabbi Hoshaiah said, anywhere one mentions morashah it means weariness. They objected, is it not written, “an inheritance, morashah, of the congregation of Jacob”Deuteronomy 33:4? He said, there is no weariness greater than this. Someone who studies forgets everything.
Mishnah
3 Both son and daughter are equal for the rules of inheritance, except that the son takes a double portion of the father’s property but no double portion of the mother’s property. And the daughters can claim support from the father’s property but not from the mother’s property.
Halakhah
“Both son and daughter are equal for the rules of inheritance,” etc. It is written: “Of anything which will be found with him,”Deuteronomy 21:17 etc. How could he inherit the expectancy as he does existing property? How? If his father died during his father’s father’s lifetime, he takes a double portion of his father’s estate but not a double portion of his grandfather’s estate. But if his father was a firstborn, just as he takes from his father’s estate so he takes from his grandfather’s estate. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Abba Cohen bar Delaiah: It was said “a rule of law” in the matter of a double portion just as it was said “a rule of law” in the matter of a single portion. Since for a single portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s single portion so for a double portion one considers the son as if he were alive to take his father’s double portion.
Mishnah
4 One who says, “my firstborn X shall not take a double portion,” or “my son Y shall not inherit together with his brothers,” did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah. One who distributes his property orally, if he increased for one, or diminished for another, or made the firstborn equal to the others, his words are upheld. However, if he expressed it in terms of inheritance, his words have no effect. But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or in the middle, or at the end, his words are upheld.
Halakhah
“One who says, ‘My firstborn X shall not take a double portion,’” etc. Rabbi La made the right of the firstborn equal to that of the brothers. Rabbi Ḥaggai said to them: Is that not a verse, “he shall not be able to declare as firstborn.”Deuteronomy 21:16 Rabbi Eliezer said, by the Temple Service! He is able, but he is not permitted. But he is able to do so by designating it as a gift.
“But if he wrote in terms of gift, whether at the start, or the middle, or the end, his words are upheld.” Rabbi Hoshaiah said: “There shall be given to Mr. X the inheritance I want him to inherit.” “X should inherit the gift I want him to inherit.” “X shall inherit the inheritance which I gave to him.” “Write and give field X to person Y.” Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rabbi Joḥanan. He told them, if it is documentation, then write and deliver. If it is to transfer property, everybody agrees that nobody can transfer property after his death.
Samuel asked Rav Huna: if one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that one brings two white horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another. It turns out that he caught nothing.
Mishnah
5 One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me while he has a daughter, or, my daughter shall inherit from me while he has a son, did not say anything since he stipulated against what is written in the Torah. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, if he said that about anybody who can be his heir, his words stand. About anybody who cannot be his heir, his words do not stand.
Halakhah
“One who says, Mr. X shall inherit from me,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said only this about a son among sons or a daughter among daughters, but not a daughter among brothers or a brother among daughters. Rabbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rabbi asked Rabbi Nathan. Bar Abba said, the question was as follows: What is Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa’s reason? Rabbi Zeira said, the question was as follows: What did they see to say that practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? He told him, did you not teach us so: “they shall inherit”? The Mishnah reads as follows: “they shall take.” Rabbi La said, even following the one who said “inherit,” is not the power of the court strengthened? As you say, nobody can transfer property using the language of gift. Here he may do it. Similarly, nobody can transfer property using the language of inheritance. Here he may do it.
There, we have stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if she dies, he should inherit from her since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah.” Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: “Since he made a condition contradicting what is written in the Torah and anybody’s condition contradicting what is written in the Torah is invalid”? Conditions other than for money matters. But here we are dealing with a money matter! What is Rav’s reason? Because in the end he acquired it. Rabbi Joḥanan said, practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, for Rabbi Joḥanan said, if she sold or gave away, the rule should be that it is valid. Then why did they say that her sale is invalid? So that she does not hide her property from her husband and say, “It is mine.” Rabbi Justinus had a case before the rabbis and they obligated him. He came before Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish who told him, enter your properties. Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira: Did not Rav say, because in the end he acquired it. Did not Rabbi Joḥanan say, practice follows Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? Did not Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish say, go and enter your properties? Who are these rabbis? The rabbis of Rabbi Justinus.
“And he shall inherit from her.”Numbers 27:11 I could think that just as he inherits from her, she should inherit from him. The verse says, “from her.” He inherits from her, she does not inherit from him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of the sages are that her father inherits from her, her brothers inherit from her. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected: If you say that the inheritance status of a woman is not from the Torah, should he not inherit from his betrothed wife? As you say there, “the one close to him,” not the betrothed one, so also here, “the one close to him,” not the betrothed one. Rav Hamnuna objected: If you say that a woman does not inherit by the word of the Torah, should not the husband inherit an expected inheritance as he does existing property? Rabbi Yose said, so Rabbi taught: The husband does not take an expected inheritance as he does property already held. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, there is the first-born whose inheritance is from the Torah but he does not take an expected inheritance as he does property already held.
Rabbi Isaac said: About those who write, if she should die without children, all that was hers shall revert to her father. This is a stipulation about money. The stipulation is valid.
“Segub fathered Jair,”1 Chronicles 2:22 etc. How did Jair come to have cities on Mount Gilead? But he married a woman from the daughters of Manasseh who died and he inherited from her. If you say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should not say that “Jair had” but that “Segub had.” Similarly, “Eleazar ben Aaron died.”Joshua 24:33 How did Phinehas come to have property on the Mountain of Ephraim? But he married a woman from the daughters of Ephraim and inherited from her. If you say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should say that “Eleazar had” not that “Phinehas had.”
Mishnah
6 If one writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, what he did is done but the sages do not approve of him. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if his children did not behave properly, let him be well remembered.
Halakhah
“If one writes his properties over to others,” etc. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, about one who writes his properties over to others while neglecting his children, the verse says: “their sins were on their bones.”Ezekiel 32:27 As in the following case: A person deposited his properties with Rabbi Abba bar Mamal and told him, if my sons prove worthy give them half and keep half. His sons came and took half. Later they came to appeal against him. He told them, your father said only: If my sons prove worthy give them half and keep half. Now you are badly educated, return to me what I gave to you.
Mishnah
7 Someone who says, this is my son, is to be believed. This is my brother, he is not to be believed but he shall split his part with him. If he dies the properties shall return to their origin. If he received property from another source, his brother shall inherit with him. If somebody died and a will was found tied to his hip, this is nothing. If in it he transferred property to another, whether of the heirs or not of the heirs, his words are confirmed.
Halakhah
“Someone who says, this is my son, is to be believed,” etc. If it was the general belief that he was his son, but at the moment of his death he said, he is not my son, or about one not his son he said, he is my son, he is believed. If he stood near the toll collector and said, he is my son and then changed and said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, and then said, he is my son, he cannot be believed. Some tannaim state, he is to be believed. Rabbi Mana said, for example those Nabateans who particularly use their sons as slaves.
“If somebody said that all his property should be given to X, a priest, and the estate contained slaves, even if the priest said ‘I cannot have them’ they eat the priestly portion. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘I cannot have them,’ the heirs acquired them.” Rabbi La said, they disagree if he did not specify. What situation are we considering? If it is clear that he wants them, everybody agrees that his slaves may eat the priestly portion. If it is clear that he does not want them, everybody agrees that the heirs acquired them. But we deal with the case that he did not specify, where the rabbis think that at the start he wanted them and then he changed his mind. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he said ‘it is impossible for me,’ the heirs acquired them.
It was stated: “Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel says: A will invalidates a will, a gift does not invalidate a gift.” Rabbi Abba bar Ḥana: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both are saying that in any case where he can invalidate his will if he recovers, he also can repeal his gift. As in the following case: Rabbi Onias’s sister wrote her property over to Rabbi Onias. She needed money and sold it to her husband. After she died, he came to protest against him. He asked him, why did you not claim it during her lifetime? He answered, I did not want to cause her pain. Nevertheless, Rabbi Immi removed it.
Mishnah
8 One who writes his properties over to his sons must write: “from today and after my death,” the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said, it is unnecessary. If one writes his properties over to his son for the time after his death, the father cannot sell them because they are written over to the son. The son cannot sell because they are in the father’s possession. If the father sold, they are sold until he dies. If the son sold, the buyer has no claim until the father dies. The father harvests and feeds anybody he pleases. What becomes part of his estate belongs to the heirs.
Halakhah
“One who writes his properties over to his sons,” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rabbi Joḥanan. “From today after his death,” his gift is a gift. “From today and after death” it is no bill of divorce. The colleagues say, he told him this: this is no condition. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he told him this: It applies neither to bills of divorce nor to gifts. Rabbi La said, for a gift. Since he said “from today,” the gift is clear. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve the yield to himself. But in bills of divorce, since he wrote “from today” in the bill, it would be a separation. Why did he write “after death”? To reserve her body to himself. Rabbi Abun bar Kahana said before Rabbi La, not to reserve her earnings for himself? He answered, we do not find a woman married to one man and her earnings belonging to another. Rabbi Zeira confirmed him and called him “son of the Torah.”
“If somebody says, I freed my slave Ṭabi, I freed him, I shall free him, he is free, this one is free. Then he acquired.” Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: But only by a document. “He should be freed, Rabbi says, he acquired, but the sages say, he did not acquire.”
If someone said, field X I gave to Y, it is given to him, it should be his, Y should inherit my property, Y should take possession of my property, he did not say anything. It should be given to him as a gift, Rabbi says, he acquired, but the sages say, he did not acquire. But one forces the heirs to fulfill the deceased’s words. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, also if one writes diethemen in Greek it is a gift. Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: I turned to all linguists to find out what diethemen means and nobody told me anything.
One who said, my property should be given to X, if X died to Y, if Y died to Z. The one who was mentioned earlier receives the property earlier. If the second died during the first’s lifetime, the first one has the right to use the property and receive its produce. When he dies the property reverts to heirs of the person who left the property. If the third died during the second’s lifetime, the first one has the right to use the property and receive its produce. When he dies the property reverts to heirs of the person who left the property. If both the second and the third die during the first’s lifetime, the first has the right to use the property and receive its produce and acquired the real estate, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, he only has the right to use the property and receive its produce. Ḥizqiah said, practice follows Rabbi. Rabbi Yannai said, Rabbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a deathbed will. Rabbi Joḥanan said, not even as a gift from a healthy person. As in the following: A woman wrote her properties over to a certain man. She needed money and sold it to her husband. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Madia brought the case before Rabbi Yose. Did not Rabbi Yannai say, Rabbi agrees that he cannot dispose of it by a deathbed will? Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the gift of a healthy person? Since the husband of this woman is obligated to provide for her food, is that not like a deathbed will? So far, he is obligated to provide for her bread and legumes. Maybe eggs? Maybe chicken? Since it was stated that the first has the right to use the property and receive its produce and acquired the real estate, that means that she may sell the property even in order to eat delicacies. Rabbi Aḥa bar Jacob said, it was stated there that her burial is part of her upkeep. If she did not have a burial site, since it was stated that the first has the right to use the property and receive its produce and acquired the real estate, it means that he may sell the real estate and acquire a burial site.
Rabbi Yose said: About those who write, “if she hates, if she is hated.” This is a stipulation about money. The rabbis upheld it.
Mishnah
9 If he left adult and underage sons, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underage, nor the underage fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones marry, the underage may marry. But if the underage said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them, because what their father gave them, he gave. If he left adult and underage daughters, the adult ones cannot be provided for at the expense of the underage, nor the underage fed at the expense of the adults, but they split evenly. If the adult ones marry, the underage may marry. But if the underage said, we want to have weddings just as you had, one does not listen to them. It is a restriction about daughters which does not exist for sons, that daughters will be fed at the expense of sons but not at the expense of daughters.
Halakhah
“If he left adult and underage sons” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira: Could the older ones take 100 barrels, each worth twenty denars, and the younger ones take 100 barrels, each worth ten denars? He told him, those should receive the same as these.
Mishnah
1 If somebody dies and is survived by sons and daughters, if the estate is large, the sons inherit and the daughters will be supported. If the estate is small, the daughters shall be supported and the sons shall go begging. Admon said, because I am a male, shall I lose? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement.
Halakhah
“If somebody dies and is survived by sons and daughters,” etc. The Mishnah reads as follows: “The daughters shall be supported and the sons shall go peddling.”
Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: That there should be twelve months of support for all of them. Samuel said, this is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi, but the words of the sages are, until they reach adulthood or are married. That is both a leniency and a restriction. Sometimes they are close to adulthood, sometimes far from adulthood. They asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, what did you hear from Rabbi Joḥanan? He said to them, I did not hear anything from him concerning this matter except what Nathan bar Hoshaia asked Rabbi Joḥanan: what if there was support for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since they started with permission, they started.
Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana. One said, only if at the end there is support for twelve months. But the other said, even from the start. If there was not support for all of them for twelve months but they increased it so that now there is support for all of them for twelve months? Rabbi Immi the Babylonian said, let us learn from the following: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property. So much more, if they increased it, they should be able to divide it. If there was support for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have support only for twelve months? Rabbi Eudaimon said, let us learn from the following: “If the orphans said, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar, one does not listen to them.” Rav Ḥisda asked: if there was support for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have support only for twelve months? But this means, only if there was support for all of them for twelve months, except for ketubah of the wife, except for the support of the widow, except for the dowries of the daughters, except for loans by document, except for loans by witnesses, except for her burial. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank. The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow does not push the daughters aside and the daughters do not push the widow aside. Sometimes the widow pushes the daughters out by means of the sons. Just as the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons, should the widow not push out the sons? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to support.
As in the following case: Rabbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. His sons came before Rabbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you? They are stupid. When they left, they said, let us ask the scribe what to do. He told them: Act as if you were going to sell off the real estate and she will demand her ketubah and will no longer have support. After some time she came before Rabbi Eleazar. He said, May I be punished if I told them anything. What can one do, this one was hit by predatory people.
Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Practice follows Ḥanan in his two statements. Practice does not follow Admon in his seven statements. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rabbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula: In every case in which Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement, practice follows Admon.
Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to the fetus. Rabbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to the fetus. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar. “If a convert died and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return what he took. If they returned everything and then the son died or his wife had a miscarriage, the last one in possession acquires it.” Did the first group acquire or not? Explain it, because of hopelessness and it does not even disagree with Samuel. Or should the last one not have acquired it? Still it is because of hopelessness.
Mishnah
2 If he is survived by sons, daughters, and a sexless child, if the estate is large the males push him to the females. If the estate is small the females push him to the males. If somebody says, in case my wife gives birth to a male, he shall take a mina. If she gave birth to a male he takes a mina. But if a female 200, if she gave birth to a female she takes 200. If a male a mina, if a female 200, if she gave birth to a male and a female, the male takes a mina and the female 200. If she gave birth to a sexless child, he does not take anything. If he said, any that my wife shall give birth to shall take, and if there is no heir but him, he inherits everything.
Halakhah
“If he is survived by sons, daughters,” etc. It was stated: “If somebody says, ‘Whoever brings me the news that my wife gave birth to a male shall take 200,’ if his wife gave birth to a male he takes 200. ‘If she gave birth to a female he shall take a mina,’ if his wife gave birth to a female he takes a mina. If it was a male and a female, he only takes a mina.” Rabbi Mana said, the pain about the daughter invalidates the joy about the son.
Mishnah
3 If he is survived by adult and underage children and the adult ones improved the property, the improvement goes to the estate. But if they said, make an inventory of what our father left and we are going to work and profit from it, they improved it for themselves. Similarly, a woman who improved the property improved for the estate. But if she said: see what my husband left for me, I shall work it and eat from it. Then she improved it for herself.
Halakhah
“If he is survived by adult and underage children,” etc. Rabbi La said, “if they said” in court. In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, even a jug. Rav said, even a basket, even an axe. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: Even a needle, even a thread to tie down.
Rabbi Ḥanina said, if somebody arranged his son’s marriage ceremony in a house, the latter acquired it. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, the house but not the movable objects. Rabbi La divided the dining hall between himself and his son. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked Rabbi Yose: If the ceremony was in the bedroom but the wedding party was in the dining room, what is the rule? He told him, one does not see him leaving.
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: One divides for the underage because of the adults. But if the underage found something additional and protested? Rabbi Abbahu said, they have to swear for them. Rabbi Mana said, everywhere the burden of proof is on the claimant except in this case. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great says, without contract brothers are co-owners up to three generations. Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, also Rav Hamnuna gave this instruction.
Rabbi Immi said, if a son was seen separated during his father’s lifetime, what he accumulated, he accumulated for himself. As in the following case: A person learned to be a barber. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rabbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person found something, his brothers share with him? A person became an agent. His brother wanted to share with him. The case came before Rabbi Immi who said, do we say that if a person went into robbery, his brothers share with him? A brother of Rabbi Horiana, brother of Rabbi Samuel ben Sosartai, wanted to share with him. He told him, brother Alexander, do you not know that our father left us thousands?
“Similarly, a woman,” etc. Rabbi La said, “if she said” in court.
Mishnah
4 If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned, he was requisitioned from the estate. If he fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are his own. If some of the brothers together sent a wedding gift during their father’s lifetime, if a corresponding gift was returned, it returned to them in common since wedding gifts can be sued for in court. But if somebody’s friend sent him pitchers of wine or oil they cannot be sued for since they represent deeds of charity.
Halakhah
“If one of co-owning brothers,” etc. It was stated: If one of co-owning brothers was requisitioned for government service. If this was because of the sharecropper, he takes because of the sharecropper. If because of the head of household, he takes as head of household. As in the following case: Rav Naḥman bar Samuel bar Naḥman was appointed to the city council. The case came before Rabbi Immi. He said, if Naḥman who was caught has enough property, it should be given from his property. Otherwise it should be given to him from the common estate.
If she fell sick and was healed, the medical costs are on the estate. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for any hurt which has a fixed medical fee, she is healed from her ketubah. If it does not have a fixed medical fee, she is healed from the estate.” As in the following case: The eye of a female relative of Rabbi Simeon bar Abba hurt. She came to Rabbi Joḥanan. He asked her: Did your doctor mention a fixed fee? If the fee is fixed, from your ketubah, if it is not fixed, your husband will give it to you. But did we not state: “Do not turn yourself into a pleader,” and did not Rabbi Ḥaggai say in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, it is forbidden to disclose a judgment to a party? They said, Rabbi Joḥanan knew her to be an honest woman. Therefore, he disclosed it to her. If her husband wants a treatment at a fixed rate, but she wants one without fixed rate, does one not listen to her husband? Rabbi Mattaniah said, only if the case is not before him. But if the case is before him, he has to tell it as it is.
Mishnah
5 If somebody sent bridal gifts to his father-in-law’s house, if he sent there for 100 minas and ate there a marriage meal for at least a denar’s worth, they cannot be collected. If he did not eat there a marriage meal, they can be collected. If he sent large bridal gifts which she is expected to bring with her to her husband’s house, they can be collected. Small bridal gifts which she is supposed to use in her father’s house cannot be collected.
Halakhah
“If somebody sent bridal gifts to his father-in-law’s house,” etc. A person sent to his betrothed wife large bridal gifts. His relatives told him not to taste anything there. He went, did not listen to them, and ate. The house collapsed. They kept everything.
A person sent to his betrothed wife 24 gourds filled with various kinds of agricultural produce between Passover and Pentecost. It was only a problem for the rabbis: from where did he bring flax and olive seeds?
Rabbi Perira brought before Rabbi Judah the Prince two radishes between New Year’s Day and the Fast. It was the year after a Sabbatical, and they were a camel’s load. He said to him, rabbi, are they not forbidden? Are they not aftergrowth? He said to him, they were sown after the end of the Sabbatical year. At that moment Rabbi permitted buying vegetables immediately after the end of the Sabbatical year.
Mishnah
6 If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others but reserved any real estate his gift is permanent. If he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not permanent. If in the document it was not written “bedridden,” he says, I was bedridden, but they are saying, he was healthy, he must prove that he was bedridden, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, the burden of proof is on the claimants.
Halakhah
“If a bedridden person distributed all his properties to others,” etc. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If he reserved any movable property, he did not do anything. But if he reserved money and bought real estate it is as if he reserved real estate. And what you say that if he did not reserve any real estate his gift is not a gift, if he did recover. But if he did not recover, that is the case about which Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai, they treated words of a bedridden person like those of a healthy person who wrote and delivered. But only if he died from that sickness. If a critically ill person distributed his property, whether on a weekday or on the Sabbath, what he did is valid. But if he was healthy it is valid only if he wrote “by money, or contract, or possession.”
Rabbi Joḥanan said: Somebody became possibly impure in an agricultural area whether in summer or in winter. This refers to the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the sages. If he comes to ask in summer, one answers him according to the rules of summer. In the winter, one answers him according to the rules of winter. Rabbi Joḥanan said, only days close to the rainy season.
Rabbi Yannai in the name of Rabbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah: “If in the document it was not written ‘bedridden’ but he says, I was bedridden,” etc. Rabbi Yannai praised him “those who pour out gold from the wallet,”Isaiah 46:6 “my son, they should not be removed from your eyes,”Proverbs 3:21 etc. A young man was selling his properties. The case came before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rabbi Joḥanan. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. Rabbi Joḥanan said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family, he has to bring proof. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the holder of documents is advantaged. Rabbi Yasa asked Rabbi Joḥanan, how about Rabbi, since Rabbi said, the holder of documents is disadvantaged? He told him, everybody agrees that the holder of documents is advantaged. But how could you say that a case came before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph who said, the presumption is that they signed for a mentally capable person. And you said, since he undertook to uproot the properties from the family to another family, he has to bring proof! He told him, I never said this. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yasa, even if Rabbi Joḥanan wants to deny it, did not Rabbi Yannai say in the name of Rabbi: The holder of documents is disadvantaged. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, is that not the Mishnah? This is the opinion of the sages who follow Rabbi.
Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Meir. Samuel said, the Mishnah is inverted. In what is the Mishnah inverted? The senior colleagues said, “witnesses.” The junior colleagues said, no “witnesses”: did they only disagree about witnesses? Rabbi Aḥa said, since I told you to write “bedridden” and you did not write it, you are liars.
Mishnah
7 If somebody distributes his property orally, Rabbi Eliezer says that whether he is healthy or critically ill, guaranteed properties can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession. Properties without a guarantee can only be acquired by drawing close. They said to him, it happened that the mother of the Bene Rokhel was sick and said, give my bonnet to my daughter, it is worth twelve minas. She died and the sages confirmed her words. He answered them, the Bene Rokhel should have been buried by their mother.
Halakhah
So far if real estate and movable property were at the same place. If real estate was at one place and movable property elsewhere? Rabbi Abin bar Ḥiyya said, let us learn from the following: Rabbi Eliezer said to them, it happened that a man from Meron was dwelling in Jerusalem who was rich in movable property. He wanted to distribute them, to give them as gifts. They said to him, you cannot do that except if you acquire real estate. What did he do? He went and bought a rock near Jerusalem and said: The northern part I give to X with a hundred sheep and a hundred amphoras of wine, the southern part I give to Y with a hundred amphoras of oil. The matter came before the sages, who upheld his words. Rabbi Ḥananiah said to Rabbi Mana: But was he not bedridden? For in general a person might give property rights only in writing, and here even orally. In general, a person might give only if real estate and movable property are at the same place. Here, however, the real estate was at one place and the movable property elsewhere. He said to him: But is there a difference for Rabbi Eliezer? Would the sick person for Rabbi Eliezer be like the healthy person for the rabbis? He said to him: The sick person for Rabbi Eliezer is like the healthy person for the rabbis.
There, we have stated: “Rabbi Akiva says, any real estate ...” Rabbi Mattaniah said, explain it if it had space for one stalk but a pearl was hidden in it.
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he looked for a pretext to curse them since they were sowing saffron in a vineyard.
Mishnah
8 But the sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed since he cannot write, but not on weekdays. Rabbi Joshua says, they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Similarly, one may acquire for an underage person but not for an adult. Rabbi Joshua says, they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.
Halakhah
“But the sages say, on the Sabbath, his words are confirmed,” etc. Some tannaim state it inversely. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah reads as follows: if they said that for the Sabbath, so much more for weekdays. Some tannaim state it inversely. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, the Mishnah reads as follows: if they said that for an underage person, so much more for an adult.
Mishnah
9 If the house collapsed on him and his father, or on him and his heirs, or on him and one from whom he inherits, and a woman’s ketubah and documents of indebtedness were on him. The father’s heirs say that the son died first and then the father. The holders of the debt say that the father died first and then the son. The House of Shammai say that they shall split. The House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders. If the house collapsed on him and his wife, the father’s heirs say that the wife died first and then the husband. The wife’s heirs say that the man died first and then the wife. The House of Shammai say that they shall split. The House of Hillel say the properties are in the possession of their holders, the ketubah is in the hands of the husband’s heirs. Properties that enter and leave with her are in the hands of her father’s heirs. If the house collapsed on him and his mother, both agree that they split. Rabbi Akiva said, I agree that here the properties remain in their presumed ownership. Ben Azzai said to him, we are already distressed about the cases in dispute, and you come to dispute with us even the cases where they agree?
Halakhah
“If the house collapsed on him and his father,” etc. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, this implies that Ben Azzai was a colleague and student of Rabbi Akiva.
Mishnah
1 The witnesses to a simple document sign inside, to a knotted one on its back. A simple document whose witnesses signed on its back and a knotted one whose witnesses signed on its interior both are invalid. Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, a knotted one whose witnesses signed inside is valid since one can turn it into a simple one. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, everything follows local custom.
Halakhah
“The witnesses to a simple document sign inside,” etc. What is the source for allowing a knotted document? Rabbi Immi said: “I took the sale document and the sealed,”Jeremiah 32:11 that is the knotted document. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules.” Orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two witnesses, the other with three. One signs inside it, the other on its back.
But the rabbis of Caesarea say, “I took the sale document,”Jeremiah 32:11 that is the simple one. “And the sealed,” that is the knotted document. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules.” Orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two witnesses, the other with three. One signs inside it, the other on its back.
Rabbi Idi in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah. The practice for a knotted one is the following. One writes the lender’s name, and the borrower’s name, the witnesses’ names, and the time. Then one knots it and repeats the text below. But should one not be concerned that he might falsify it? Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read in the text above: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.”
Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The signatures of the witnesses must be two blank lines away from the text. Rabbi Idi in the name of Rav Jeremiah: On a knotted document the witnesses sign lengthwise. On a simple document the witnesses sign across. The first one on the outside, the latter one on the inside. Rabbi Mana said, ... How do the witnesses sign on a knotted document? Rav Huna said, between two knots. Rabbi Idi said, but between witnesses’ signatures and the document there may not be space for two lines.
Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject in any case invalidates. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness ...” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? So that they can be read with it, the words of Rabbi. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rabbi Dositheos ben Judah says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: One estimates by lekh velekh. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Sabbatai: the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.
Ḥizqiah said, only for leniency. If the witnesses’ handwriting was small and the text large, one follows the large. If the witnesses’ handwriting was large and the text small, one follows the small. Rabbi Isaac says: If his name was, for example, Yose ben Yannai one estimates as if it were Melekh ben Melekh.
Rabbi Idi in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: One has to expand two lines from an erasure. Rabbi Isaac said, even for a simple document. Rav said, an erasure or an insertion must be confirmed in writing. Rav said, “this is its confirmation.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Isaac ben Ḥaqula: Any erasure has to be given a maximal interpretation. What does it mean that any erasure has to be given a maximal interpretation? Rabbi Yasa the fuller, son-in-law to Rabbi Yose, in the name of Rabbi Yose: “Contract” is written on top, “contract” erased below. I am saying, they decided to make it an unconditional betrothal. They erased it in order not to make an insertion in the document, because the rabbis are suspicious of insertions in documents.
Rabbi Huna handed a document to Rabbi Shammai. Ogdoe- was on an erasure, -konta was not on an erasure. Rabbi Huna told Rabbi Shammai, find out what is the minimum with which -konta is used. He went out and said, triakonta. After they left, he said, this one wanted to gain 30 and lost 20.
“Rabbi answered to confirm the words of Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.” What is the main text of a document? Rabbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness? Rabbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. Rabbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable. Rabbi Judah says, if one adds to the practice. A simple document has two witnesses, a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.
Mishnah
2 A simple document has two witnesses and a knotted one three. A simple document in which one witness signed or a knotted one where two signed are both invalid. If there is written in it “100 zuz which are 20 tetradrachmas,” he only has 20. “100 zuz which are 30 tetradrachmas,” he only has a mina. “Silver zuzim which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two. “Silver tetradrachmas which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two. “Dareikos which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two.
Halakhah
“A simple document has two witnesses,” etc. It was stated: “Zuzin which are” and the rest was erased. Five, but the other says, they were only two. There, they say, Ben Azzai and Rabbi Akiva. One of them said, he pays two and swears about the remainder. But the other said, since if this one had not agreed to anything, the other could only have collected two, he should only have to swear on what he conceded.
Mishnah
3 If at the start there was written a mina but at the end 200, or at the start 200 and at the end a mina, everything goes according to the end. If this is so, why does one write at the start? That if at the end a letter should become illegible, one may recover it from the start.
Halakhah
“If at the start there was written a mina,” etc. It was stated: Always in a knotted document the reading at the bottom should be established from the top for one letter but not for two letters. One confirms between Ḥanan and Ḥanani, or Anan and Anani, a difference of one letter. For two letters one does not confirm. Rabbi Isaac asked: At the top it was written Ḥanan, at the bottom Nani. May the top learn from the bottom for Ḥanan and the bottom from the top for Nani?
Mishnah
4 One writes a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife is not present, and a receipt for the wife even though her husband is not present on condition that he know her. The husband pays the fee. One writes a document of indebtedness for the borrower even though the creditor is not present, but one does not write a document of indebtedness for the creditor if the borrower is not present. The borrower pays the fee. One writes a sale contract for the seller even though the buyer is not present, but one does not write a sale contract for the buyer if the seller is not present. The buyer pays the fee. Documents of betrothal and marriage are written only at the request of both parties. The groom pays the fee. Sharecropping agreements and leases are written only at the request of both parties. The tenant pays the fee. Arbitration agreements and court decisions are written only at the request of both parties. Both of them pay the fee. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one writes them in duplicate, one for each party.
Halakhah
“One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. Rabbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rabbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rabbi La it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”
Mishnah
5 If somebody paid off part of his debt, deposited his bond with a third party, and told him, if I have not paid him by date x, return the bond to him. If the time has passed while he did not pay, Rabbi Yose says, he shall return it. Rabbi Judah says, he shall not return it. If somebody’s bond became illegible, he presents witnesses about it to the court and they confirm for him: The bond of Mr. X, son of Mr. Y, dated from day Z became illegible. U and V were his witnesses.
Halakhah
“One writes a document of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated, forfeitures. Rabbi Abbahu collected, Rabbi Aḥa collected, Rabbi Immi collected. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose did not collect. Rabbi Mana said, even though Rabbi Yose did not collect forfeitures, he agrees if one gave his son to artisans and they mutually agreed to forfeitures, he collects.
“One writes a sale contract for the seller,” etc. Rabbi Uqba said, it was stated in Ketubot of the school of Levi: If one said, my document was lost, the court writes him a confirmation. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, even for documents of arbitration one writes him a confirmation.
Mishnah
6 If somebody paid off part of his debt, Rabbi Judah said, he shall exchange his bond, but Rabbi Yose said, he shall write a receipt. Rabbi Judah said, but then this one must guard his receipt from the rats! Rabbi Yose answered him, he deserves that burden, so that the other person’s rights are not impaired.
Halakhah
“If somebody paid off part of his debt,” etc. Rav said, the court writes him a confirmation. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: the court does not write a confirmation. Rabbi Jeremiah said, if Rav had heard this baraita, he would not have said what he did.
“If two people lived in the same town,” etc. “They cannot write a bond one on the other.” As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”
Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rabbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rabbi Yose have said, “he deserves that burden, so that the other person’s rights are not impaired”?
Mishnah
7 Two brothers, one poor and one rich, to whom their father left a bathhouse and an olive press. If they were built to be rented out, the rental fees are common property. If he built them for his own use, the rich one tells the poor, buy yourself slaves and have them bathe in the bathhouse, buy yourself olives and process them in the olive press. If two people lived in the same town, both called Yose ben Simeon, they cannot write a bond one on the other or a third party on one of them. If somebody found between his bonds a bond of Yose ben Simeon which was paid off, the bonds of both of them are paid off. What can they do? They write three generations. If their names were identical for three generations, they should write a characteristic mark. If they had identical characteristic marks, they should write “priest.” If somebody said to his son, a bond among my bonds is paid, but it is not known which one it is, all his bonds are paid. If one finds there two bonds given by the same debtor, the larger one is paid, the smaller one is not paid.
Halakhah
“If somebody said to his son,” etc. It was stated: The worry caused by a large bond is not comparable to the worry caused by a small bond.
Mishnah
8 Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor may not request payment from the guarantor. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may ask payment from the guarantor. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if the debtor has real estate then in no case may he request payment from the guarantor.
Halakhah
“Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor,” etc. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If the debtor has real estate. But if the debtor has no real estate, he may request payment from the guarantor. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may request payment from the guarantor.
There, they instruct that practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel except for the guarantor, Sidon, and the last proof. They say, only in the Mishnah. Rabbi Immi bar Qorḥa in the name of Rav: Why did they say, practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? Because he stated specific rulings decided by his court.
Mishnah
9 Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said that if a person was guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the latter has to make a vow not to receive any benefit from her property so they could not plan a partnership against that person’s property and then he would take back his wife.
Halakhah
“Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. The father-in-law of Rabbi Ḥaggai’s daughter was guarantor for Rabbi Ḥaggai’s daughter’s ketubah. She turned out to be a spendthrift. The case came before Rabbi Aḥa, who said that he would have to make a vow not to receive benefit from her property. Rabbi Yose said, he does not have to make a vow not to receive benefit from her property. The colleagues said to Rabbi Yose, but if he would take her back, the creditor would come and seize it. He said, he would not take her back. But it could be transformed into movable objects or personal belongings which the creditors could not seize. The case was decided following Rabbi Aḥa.
Mishnah
10 Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rabbi Ishmael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the marketplace and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made in reliance on him. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended in reliance on him. Rabbi Ishmael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since there is nothing greater in the Torah. They are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.
Halakhah
“Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? That means, Rav Huna, Rabbi Eleazar, and Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. “Rabbi Eleazar said, it is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses. And she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish say, that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”
Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rabbi Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish.
“Ben Nannas said to him,” etc. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Even though Rabbi Ishmael praised Ben Nannas, he praised him only for his argument. But practice does not follow Ben Nannas. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Also in the case of the strangled person practice follows Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Yose said, one infers from here that a person who caught another in the marketplace, when a third person came and said, let him go and I shall give, collects from the one but does not collect from the other.
About this book
Jerusalem Bava Batra
0 connections
No connections in this book yet.