# snc

lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k28b_1:" Here follows a further objection against the analogy from the goring ox."
,k28b_2:" E.g., that the holder bought it from the claimant, but has lost the deed. V. <i>infra</i> 41a."
,k28b_3:" <i>Infra</i> 49a."
,k28b_4:" Lit., 'as he says now', E.g., if the claimant says, 'You stole it from me,' and the holder says, 'I bought it from you,' the fact that he has had the use of the land for three years creates a presumption that he is speaking the truth."
,k28b_5:" Hence the fact that a plea of justification is required does not militate against deriving the law of <i>hazakah</i> from that of the ox,"
,k28b_6:" And the rule is that it is valid. V. <i>infra</i> 39a."
,k28b_7:" Ex. XXI, 29, implying 'in the presence of the owner'."
,k28b_8:" A popular saying. Someone is bound to tell the holder that the claimant has protested against his occupation of the land, and he will therefore take care not to lose his title-deed."
,k28b_9:" R. Meir uses this <i>a fortiori</i> argument in support of his view against that of R. Judah who defines a <i>Mu'ad</i>, 'an ox who gored on three successive days but not who gored three times in one day,' v, B.K. 24a."
,k28b_10:" And this is against all authority."
,k28b_11:" Lit., 'ate'."
,k28b_12:" One fruit of which is still very small when another is plucked."
,k28b_13:" Which is cropped three times in a month."
,k28b_14:" Lit., 'he merely plucks and eats it.'"
,k28b_15:" Which is plucked up and sown afresh every month, so that all three crops have time to ripen fully."
,k28b_16:" We do not hear of R. Ishmael after the war of Bether, so he probably attended the Sanhedrin at Usha in the early part of the 2nd century C.E. As R. Johanan was not born till the later part of the century, he could hardly have known R. Ishmael personally. Perhaps we should translate above: 'I heard from those who attended (the Synod) at Usha that (those who attended the Sanhedrin there in the previous generation) used to say, etc.'"
,k28b_17:" Who do not accept it. Ishmael's view that the rule of <i>hazakah</i> is derived from that of the ox."
,k28b_18:" Jer. XXXII, 44."
,k28b_19:" V. Ibid. 1."
,k28b_20:" V. Ibid. XXXIX, 2. As they will thus not have the use of the fields for more than two years, he warns them to be careful of their title-deeds. "
}

txt:
<p>
but until it has gored the fourth time there is no reason why the owner should pay, whereas here, as soon as the use of it has been enjoyed for three years, the property becomes the fixed possession of the holder.
</p><p>
	Now if this is correct<a id="k28b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [that the law of <i>hazakah</i> is derived from the law of the ox], it would follow that three years' possession would confer a legal title even without a plea [of justification].<a id="k28b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Why then have we learnt<a id="k28b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; that possession without a plea of justification does not confer a legal title? &mdash; The reason why [we confirm the holder in possession when he pleads justification] is because it is possible that his plea is truthful.<a id="k28b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But if he himself advances no plea, shall we put in a plea for him?<a id="k28b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. 'Awira brought a strong objection against this analogy [between the field and the ox]. On this principle, he said, a protest made not in the presence of the holder should not be valid,<a id="k28b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; after the analogy of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox; for just as in the case of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox [the warning] must be given in the presence of the owner, so here the protest should be made in the presence of the holder? &mdash; There [in the case of the ox] Scripture says, And it hath been testified to his owner';<a id="k28b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; here [in the case of property] 'your friend has a friend, and the friend of your friend has a friend.'<a id="k28b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now [suppose we accept the ruling] according to R. Meir, who said: 'If there was an interval between the gorings the owner is liable, all the more so then if they followed closely on one another.'<a id="k28b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; [On the analogy of this], if a man gathered three crops on one day, as for instance figs [in three stages of ripeness]. this should constitute presumptive right, [should it not]?<a id="k28b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash;  No; the action must be strictly analogous to the case of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox. Just as in the case of the <i>Mu'ad</i> ox at the time when the first goring took place there was as yet no second goring, so here at the time when the first fruit is plucked the second must not yet be in existence. But suppose he gathered<a id="k28b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; three crops in three days, as of a caperbush,<a id="k28b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; should not that confer presumptive right? &mdash; In this case also the [second] fruit exists already [when he gathers the first crop] and it merely goes on ripening. But suppose he gathered three crops in thirty days, as of clover<a id="k28b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; should not this confer presumptive right? How exactly do you mean? That it is cropped as it grows? Then this is merely partial eating<a id="k28b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [and not the full eating required to confer presumptive right]. But suppose then that he consumed three crops in three months, as of clover,<a id="k28b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; should not this confer presumptive right? &mdash; Who is meant by the 'Rabbis who attended Usha'? &mdash; R. Ishmael;<a id="k28b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and this actually would be the view of R. Ishmael, as we have learnt: R. ISHMAEL SAYS: THIS REFERS ONLY TO A CORNFIELD, BUT IN A FIELD PLANTED WITH TREES, IF A MAN HARVESTS HIS GRAPES, GATHERS IN HIS OLIVES, AND HARVESTS HIS FIGS, THIS COUNTS AS THREE YEARS.
</p><p>
	And whence do the Rabbis<a id="k28b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; derive the rule [that three years possession confers presumptive right]? &mdash; R. Joseph said: They derive it from the Scriptural verse, Men shall buy fields for money and subscribe the deeds and seal them.<a id="k28b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; For there the prophet is speaking in the tenth year [of Zedekiah]<a id="k28b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; and he warns the people [that they will go into captivity] in the eleventh.<a id="k28b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: perhaps he was merely giving a piece of good advice?
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k61a_1:" Heb. bayith, which may mean either an apartment or a whole house."
,k61a_2:" Explained in the Gemara."
,k61a_3:" In spite of the fact that it is for practical purposes little more than an appendage of the room."
,k61a_4:" Attached to the back of the house."
,k61a_5:" Since this makes it into a separate structure."
,k61a_6:" Since this also makes it a separate structure."
,k61a_7:" In Babylon."
,k61a_8:" A closed-in verandah; a small, low structure at the side or back of a house."
,k61a_9:" E.g., with lattices, like our verandahs. This has a more independent value than the closed-in one."
,k61a_10:" Viz., in the Scriptural account of the Temple of Solomon in I Kings, and of the Temple of the future in Ezekiel."
,k61a_11:" I Kings VI, 6."
,k61a_12:" Ezek. XLI, 6."
,k61a_13:" = 6 cubits. The reference here is to the lodges of the middle storey. V. Ezek. XLI, 7."
,k61a_14:" Ezek. XL, 7."
,k61a_15:" Of the middle storey."
,k61a_16:" Mid. IV, 4. This shows that the ta was something attached to the wall."
,k61a_17:" Because otherwise it is not reckoned a separate structure."
,k61a_18:" V. <i>infra</i> 64a."
,k61a_19:" And therefore it is reasonable that they should not be included in the house."
,k61a_20:" Seeing that it is used for quite distinct purposes from the living room, e.g.. as a box room. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_iv">CHAPTER IV</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN SELLS A HOUSE<a id="k61a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [WITHOUT FURTHER SPECIFICATION], THE YAZIA'<a id="k61a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; IS NOT INCLUDED WITH IT,<a id="k61a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; EVEN THOUGH IT OPENS INTO THE HOUSE, NOR IS AN INSIDE ROOM<a id="k61a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [WHICH IS ENTERED FROM IT]. NOR THE ROOF, SO LONG AS IT HAS A PARAPET TEN HAND BREADTHS HIGH.<a id="k61a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JUDAH SAYS THAT IF IT HAS [ANYTHING OF] THE SHAPE OF A DOOR, EVEN THOUGH THE PARAPET IS NOT TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH IT IS NOT SOLO [WITH THE HOUSE].<a id="k61a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is meant by the word <I>yazia'</I>? &mdash; Here<a id="k61a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it was translated as <I>apsa</I>.<a id="k61a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joseph said: It means a verandah with a semiopen side.<a id="k61a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; For one who holds that a closed-in verandah is not sold [with the room]. there is no question that an open one is not. But the one who says [that the verandah excluded here is] the open one would nevertheless include the closed-in one.
</p><p>
	R. Joseph learned: Three names are found for this structure in the Scriptures<a id="k61a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; <I>yazia', zela', ta. Yazia</I>,<a id="k61a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; as it is written, <I>The nethermost storey</I> [yazia'] <I>was five cubits broad</I>;<a id="k61a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>zela'</I>, as it is written, <I>And the side chambers</I> [zela'oth] <I>were in three stories, one over another and thirty in order</I>;<a id="k61a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>ta</I>, as it is written, <I>And every lodge [ta] was one reed<a id="k61a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; long and one reed broad, and the space between the lodges was five cubits</I>.<a id="k61a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Or if you like I can derive it [the fact that a verandah is called ta] from here: 'The wall of the Sanctuary was six cubits and the ta<a id="k61a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; was six and the wall of the <I>ta</I> was six.'<a id="k61a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra said: [A verandah is not sold with a room] only if it has an area of four [square] cubits.<a id="k61a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabina to Mar Zutra: On your view that it must be four [square] cubits, what about the cistern, of which we have learnt, that the cistern and the well are not included [in the sale of the house] even if he [the seller] inserts in the deed of sale the words 'to the height and to the depth'?<a id="k61a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; [Are we to say that] there likewise [the rule] applies only if they have an area of four cubits, but otherwise not? &mdash; [He replied]: How can you compare the two? The cistern and the well are used for quite different purposes from the house,<a id="k61a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but here both [the verandah and the house] are used for the same purposes. Hence if it is four cubits [square], it is reckoned as a separate structure, but if less not.
</p><p>
	NOR AN INSIDE ROOM WHICH IS ENTERED FROM IT. If a verandah is not sold [along with the living room], do we need to be told that an inside room is not?<a id="k61a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k61b_1:" V. p. 247. n. 1."
,k61b_2:" And his intention is to sell only the apartment."
,k61b_3:" And the rule need not have been stated."
,k61b_4:" This being the regular formula of a deed of sale. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k61b_5:" Viz., the tenement."
,k61b_6:" Viz., the rest of the stretch."
,k61b_7:" The word birah (tenement house) was applied specifically to the large hall in it into which the separate apartments opened, and which was used for sitting and walking about in and not for residence."
,k61b_8:" [Delete 'b. Shilath', v. D.S. a.l. and cf. <i>infra</i> p. 357, n. 15.]"
,k61b_9:" That boundaries may be drawn wide; and it is to prevent the seller from entering such a place that the insertion of this formula in the deed of sale was prescribed by R. Mari."
,k61b_10:" And the purchaser must take whichever one the seller chooses."
,k61b_11:" [So Ms.M; V. D.S. a.l.]"
,k61b_12:" Zihara, a name which probably included all cultivable ground. "
}

txt:
<p>
 &mdash; It was necessary to state the rule to show that [this is the case] even if the seller drew the boundaries [in the deed of sale] outside [the inner room]. This is based on the ruling laid down by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha. For R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha that if a man sells another an apartment<a id="k61b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in a large tenement-house, even if he draws the boundaries outside [the whole tenement-house] we say that he only drew the boundaries wide.<a id="k61b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; How are we to understand this rule? If the apartment is called an apartment and the tenement a tenement, then it is self-evident:<a id="k61b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; he is selling him an apartment, not a tenement? If again the tenement also is called an apartment, then he sells the whole to him [does he not]? &mdash; The rule is required for the case where most people call the apartment an apartment and the tenement a tenement, but some call the tenement also an apartment. I might think that in this case [if he draws the boundaries wide] he sells him the whole. We are therefore told that since he might have inserted [in the deed of sale the words], 'And I have not reserved for myself anything from this transfer,'<a id="k61b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and did not insert them, we assume that he did reserve something.<a id="k61b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman also said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If a man sells to another a field in a big stretch of fields, even though he draw the outer boundaries [right round the whole stretch, he only sells the field, because] we say that he draws the boundaries wide. How are we to understand this? If the field is called a field and the stretch a stretch, the proposition is self-evident; he is selling him a field, not a stretch. If again the stretch is also called field, then the whole is sold to him [is it not]? &mdash; The rule is necessary for the case where some call the stretch a stretch and some call it a field. You might think that in this case he sells him the whole. Therefore we are told that since he might have inserted [in the deed of sale the words]. 'I have not reserved for myself anything from this transfer,' and did not insert them, we are to assume that he did reserve something.<a id="k61b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; And both these rulings [about the house and the field] required to be stated. For if had only the one about the house, I might say that the reason [why the tenement is not sold with the apartment] is because they are used for different purposes,<a id="k61b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of the stretch of fields and the field where the whole [stretch] is used for the same purpose I might say that the whole is sold. And if I had only the rule about the stretch of fields, I might think that the reason [why it is not all sold] is because it is difficult to mark off one field [in the middle of a stretch], but in the case of the apartment, where he could easily have marked it off and did not do so, I might think that he has sold him the whole. Hence both are necessary.
</p><p>
	What authority does R. Mari the son of the daughter of Samuel b. Shilath<a id="k61b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; follow in the statement he made in the name of Abaye: If a man sells property to another, he should insert in the deed of sale the words, 'I have not reserved from this transfer for myself anything.' The authority is the dictum enunciated by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha.<a id="k61b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another: I will sell you the land of Hiyya's. There were two pieces of land which were called Hiyya's. R. Ashi said: He sold him one piece of land, not two.<a id="k61b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, a man says to another, 'I will sell you some lands,'<a id="k61b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the minimum that can be called 'lands' is two. If he says 'all the lands', [this includes] all his landed property except gardens and orchards. If he says 'fields',<a id="k61b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; this includes gardens and orchards also, but not houses and slaves.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k73a_1:" Who also, according to the final conclusion arrived at, holds that they are not sanctified."
,k73a_2:" Resh Lakish had this on tradition from his teacher."
,k73a_3:" Lit., 'the slaves'."
,k73a_4:" [H] Cf. [G]."
,k73a_5:" To the buyer."
,k73a_6:" The ship."
,k73a_7:" The Gemara now proceeds to explain [H] and [H] the Hebrew terms used in the Mishnah."
,k73a_8:" Lit., 'cedar'."
,k73a_9:" [H] 'mast'. The proof that <I>toren</I> means mast lies in the fact that masts are made from cedars or trees of similar height."
,k73a_10:" Ezek. XXVII, 5."
,k73a_11:" Ibid. v. 7. Ensign. Heb. [H] The Gemara regards [H] Ezek. as parallel to [H] hence sail."
,k73a_12:" [H] from [H] same root as that of [H] meaning in <I>Niph. to be shut up, to be held fast.</I> The anchor holds the ship fast in the water."
,k73a_13:" Ruth I, 13."
,k73a_14:" I.e., the oars are implicitly sold together with the ship."
,k73a_15:" Ezek. XXVII, 6. The Scriptural text is describing a ship and gives details of its equipment. Since oars are included in the description they must be regarded as part of the ship's equipment and are, therefore, implicitly sold together with the ship."
,k73a_16:" Ezek. XXVII, 29. This verse shows the close connection between the oars and the ship. Cf. previous note."
,k73a_17:" Viz., its oars, poles, ladders, etc. Heb. Iskela, [H] ([G]); Rashb. ladders (<I>scalae</I>)."
,k73a_18:" Heb. <I>Buzith</I>, [H] from [H] egg shaped, oval (or [H] marsh), which is attached to the bigger ship, [and into which passengers disembark on nearing the (marshy) shallows (v. Obermeyer. <i>op. cit</i>. pag. 201)]."
,k73a_19:" Heb. Dugith, [H] (from [H] to fish), which forms part of the equipment of the bigger ship."
,k73a_20:" Pl. of <I>Buzith</I>"
,k73a_21:" [ <I>Maisan</I> (Mesene) the marshland S.E, of Babylonia intersected with shallow streams (v. Obermeyer. ibid.)]."
,k73a_22:" Amos IV, 2. <I>Fishing boats</I>, [H] 'small boats like pots' (Rashb.)."
,k73a_23:" The following apparent hyperboles are probably allegories on the political and social conditions of the time."
,k73a_24:" Cf. Ex. III, 14."
,k73a_25:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k73a_26:" Cf. Kohut, Aruch. s. v. [H]. Current editions read, 'And it was like one scattering forty measures of mustard seeds', or 'and it was of the size of a field needed for forty measures etc."
,k73a_27:" Jer. V, 22."
,k73a_28:" Munich MS. and others read, Rabbah b. Bar Hana."
,k73a_29:" Hamburg MS. and others read <I>Hormiz</I> (Ormuzd). <I>Hormin</I> is the name of a demon. Ormuzd, according to <I>Zend Avesta</I>, is the impersonation of the light or the good principle in nature. From the present context it appears that an evil demon is meant."
,k73a_30:" <I>Lilith</I>, a female night demon."
,k73a_31:" [H] Rashb. reads [H], 'on the <I>pinnacles'</I>."
,k73a_32:" Lit., horse, [H] Current editions read [H] animal. "
}

txt:
<p>
Why does he not say: Between R. Simeon<a id="k73a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and the Rabbis? &mdash; He intimates in this way that R. Menahem b. Jose was of the same opinion as R. Simeon.<a id="k73a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_v">CHAPTER V</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. HE WHO SELLS A SHIP SELLS [IMPLICITLY] ITS MAST, SAIL, ANCHOR AND ALL THE IMPLEMENTS NEEDED FOR DIRECTING IT, BUT HE DOES NOT SELL THE CREW,<a id="k73a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR THE PACKING-BAGS,<a id="k73a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR THE STORES. IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID TO HIM:<a id="k73a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; 'IT<a id="k73a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; AND ALL THAT IT CONTAINS', THEN ALL THESE ARE INCLUDED IN THE SALE.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. TOREN<a id="k73a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is the mast; for so it is written: They have taken cedars<a id="k73a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; from Lebanon to make masts<a id="k73a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; for thee.<a id="k73a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; NES<a id="k73a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is the sail; for so it is written: Of fine linen with richly woven work from Egypt was thy sail, that it might be to thee for an ensign.<a id="k73a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [As to] OGEN,<a id="k73a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hiyya taught: These are its anchors; for so it is written: Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? Would ye shut yourselves off<a id="k73a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; for them and have no husbands?<a id="k73a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND ALL THE IMPLEMENTS NEEDED FOR DIRECTING IT &mdash; R. Abba said: This refers to the oars;<a id="k73a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; for so it is written: Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars.<a id="k73a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you desire, you may infer it<a id="k73a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; from the following text: And all that handle the oar shall come down from their ships.<a id="k73a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: He who sells a ship sells [implicitly] its wooden implements<a id="k73a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and its [sweet water] tank. R. Nathan says: He who sells a ship sells implicitly its buzith.<a id="k73a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Symmachus says: He who sells a ship sells [implicitly] its dugith.<a id="k73a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Buzith and dugith are the same: R. Nathan, the Babylonian, called it Buzith, as they say [in Babylon]' the Buziatha<a id="k73a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of Maisan';<a id="k73a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; while Symmachus. who was a Palestinian, called it Dugith, for so it is written: And your residue [shall be taken away] in fishing boats.<a id="k73a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah said: Seafarers told me:<a id="k73a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; The wave that sinks a ship appears with a white fringe of fire at its crest, and when stricken with clubs on which is engraven. 'I am that I am,<a id="k73a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; Yah, the Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah', it subsides,
</p><p>
	Rabbah said: Seafarers told me: There is a distance of three hundred parasangs<a id="k73a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; between one wave and the other, and the height of the wave is [also] three hundred parasangs. 'Once,' [they related], 'we were on a voyage, and the wave lifted us up so high that we saw the resting place of the smallest star, and there was a flash as if one shot forty arrows of iron;<a id="k73a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and if it had lifted us up still higher. We would have been burned by its heat. And one wave called to the other: "My friend, have you left anything in the world that you did not wash away? I will go and destroy it." The other replied: "Go and see the power of the master [by whose command] I must not pass the sand'[of the shore even as much as] the breadth of a thread"; as it is written: <I>Fear ye not me? saith the Lord; will ye not tremble at my presence? who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, an everlasting ordinance, which it cannot pass</I>.<a id="k73a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah<a id="k73a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; said: I saw how <I>Hormin</I><a id="k73a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; the son of <I>Lilith</I><a id="k73a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; was running on the parapet<a id="k73a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; of the wall of Mahuza, and a rider, galloping below on horseback<a id="k73a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; could not overtake him. Once they saddled for him two mules which stood
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k73b_1:" Name of a river."
,k73b_2:" Lit., 'from this to that and from that to this'."
,k73b_3:" Ps. CVII, 26."
,k73b_4:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k73b_5:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">glos.</a>"
,k73b_6:" Lit., 'stretching'; i.e., 'when stretched'."
,k73b_7:" I.e., when resting on the ground."
,k73b_8:" Lit., 'which was'. (14a) [Outside Nehardea, Obermeyer. p. 265]"
,k73b_9:" Lit., 'and went up (and) sat'."
,k73b_10:" Lit., 'come and see'."
,k73b_11:" Lit., 'mud-eater', 'a parasite living on fishes'."
,k73b_12:" And killed the fish."
,k73b_13:" Lit., 'months of the year'."
,k73b_14:" One of the sea islands."
,k73b_15:" I.e., against the wind."
,k73b_16:" I.e., sailing with the wind."
,k73b_17:" Heb. gildana [H] a small sea-monster."
,k73b_18:" Lit., 'there was no water'."
,k73b_19:" [H] 'heavenly echo', 'divine voice'; a lower grade of prophecy, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k73b_20:" [H] is rendered by the <i>Targum</i> (Ps. L, 11). 'the wild cock whose ankles rest on the ground and whose head reaches the sky'."
,k73b_21:" Ps. L, 11. 'With me', i.e., 'with God in heaven' is assumed to be an allusion to the bird's head, which reaches the sky."
,k73b_22:" Lit., 'in you'."
,k73b_23:" When a feast is to be provided for the righteous."
,k73b_24:" Indicating that that would be his portion in the world to come."
,k73b_25:" Lit., 'flank', 'thigh'."
,k73b_26:" The protracted suffering of the geese caused by their growing fatness is due to Israel's sins which delay the coming of the Messiah, or the era denoted by the expression, 'the world to come'."
,k73b_27:" The mnemonic is an aid to the memorisation of the following stories told by Rabbah b. bar Hana. <I>Sand</I> refers to the first story where the smelling of sand by the Arab is mentioned. <I>Purple blue</I> occurs in the second story. <I>Scorpion</I> recalls the scorpions round Mount Sinai in the third story, <I>stirred</I> refers to the story of Korah and his sons in Gehenna in the fourth story, and basket is mentioned in the fifth and last story."
,k73b_28:" Substituted the sand of one place for that of another, in order to put him to the test."
,k73b_29:" [H] those Israelites who died during the forty years wanderings in the wilderness, on their way to the Promised Land. Cf. Num. XIV, 32ff. "
}

txt:
<p>
on two bridges of the Rognag;<a id="k73b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and he jumped from one to the other, backward and forward,<a id="k73b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; holding in his hands two cups of wine, pouring alternately<a id="k73b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; from one to the other, and not a drop fell to the ground. [Furthermore]. it was [a stormy] day [such as that on which] <I>they [that go down to the sea in ships] mounted up to the heaven; they went down to the deeps</I>.<a id="k73b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; When the government heard [of this] they put him to death.
</p><p>
	Rabbah<a id="k73b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; said: I saw an antelope. one day old, that was as big as Mount Tabor. (How big is Mount Tabor? &mdash; Four parasangs.)<a id="k73b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; The length of its neck<a id="k73b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; was three parasangs.and the resting place of its head<a id="k73b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; was one <i>parasang</i> and a half. It cast a ball of excrement and blocked up the Jordan.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana further stated: I saw a frog the size<a id="k73b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; of the Fort of Hagronia. (What is the size of the Fort of Hagronia? &mdash; Sixty houses.) There came a snake and swallowed the frog. Then came a raven and swallowed the snake, and perched<a id="k73b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; on a tree. Imagine<a id="k73b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; how strong was the tree. R. Papa b. Samuel said: Had I not been there I would not have believed it.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana further stated: Once we were travelling on board a ship and saw a fish in whose nostrils a parasite<a id="k73b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; had entered.<a id="k73b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Thereupon, the water cast up the fish and threw it upon the shore. Sixty towns were destroyed thereby, sixty towns ate therefrom, and sixty towns salted [the remnants] thereof, and from one of its eyeballs three hundred kegs of oil were filled. On returning after twelve calendar months<a id="k73b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; we saw that they were cutting rafters from its skeleton and proceeding to rebuild those towns.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana further stated: Once we were travelling on board a ship and saw a fish whose back was covered with sand out of which grew grass. Thinking it was dry land<a id="k73b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; we went up and baked, and cooked, upon its back. When, however, its back was heated it turned, and had not the ship been nearby we should have been drowned.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana further stated: We travelled once on board a ship. and the ship sailed between one fin of the fish and the other for three days and three nights; it [swimming] upwards<a id="k73b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; and we [floating] downwards.<a id="k73b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; And if you think the ship did not sail fast enough, R. Dimi, when he came, stated that it covered sixty parasangs in the time it takes to warm a kettle of water. When a horseman shot an arrow [the ship] outstripped it. And R. Ashi said: That was one of the small sea monsters<a id="k73b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; which have [only] two fins.
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana further related: Once we travelled on board a ship and we saw a bird standing up to its ankles in the water while its head reached the sky. We thought the water was not deep<a id="k73b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and wished to go down to cool ourselves, but a <I>Bath Kol</I><a id="k73b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; called out: 'Do not go down here for a carpenter's axe was dropped [into this water] seven years ago and it has not [yet] reached the bottom. And this, not [only] because the water is deep but [also] because it is rapid. R. Ashi said: That [bird] was <I>Ziz-Sadai</I><a id="k73b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; for it is written: <I>And Ziz-Sadai is with me</I>.<a id="k73b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana further related: We were once travelling in the desert and saw geese whose feathers fell out on account of their fatness, and streams of fat flowed under them. I said to them: 'Shall we have a share of your flesh<a id="k73b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; in the world to come?'<a id="k73b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; One lifted up [its] wing,<a id="k73b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; the other lifted up [its] leg.<a id="k73b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; When I came before R. Eleazar he said unto me: Israel will be called to account for [the sufferings<a id="k73b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; of] these [geese].
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic: <I>Like the sand of the purple blue scorpion stirred his basket</I>.)<a id="k73b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah b. Bar Hana related: We were once travelling in a desert and there joined us an Arab merchant who, [by] taking up sand and smelling it [could] tell which was the way to one place and which was the way to another. We said unto him: 'How far are we from water?' He replied: 'Give me [some] sand.' We gave him, and he said unto us: 'Eight parasangs.' When we gave him again [later], he told us that we were three parasangs off. I changed it;<a id="k73b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; but was unable [to nonplus] him.
</p><p>
	He said unto me: 'Come and I will show you the Dead of the Wilderness.'<a id="k73b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; I went [with him] and saw them; and they looked as if in a state of exhilaration.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k92a_1:" Which are usually sold as seed."
,k92a_2:" The seller may claim to have sold them as food, not as seed."
,k92a_3:" The seller."
,k92a_4:" The entire transaction is invalid, since the purchase had been for seed, and it has proved to be useless for that purpose."
,k92a_5:" B.K. 46a."
,k92a_6:" Before the sale took place."
,k92a_7:" Lit., 'mistaken deal', 'a purchase based on error'. An ox is usually purchased to plough or to perform similar service. The sale, therefore, took place under false pretences, and is consequently invalid, and the seller must return the purchase money."
,k92a_8:" Samuel is of the opinion that, in money matters, general practice is no determining factor in the validity of the sale. The seller, therefore, can claim that, despite the general practice, he has sold him the ox, not for ploughing, but for slaughter."
,k92a_9:" Lit., 'for this and for that'; for ploughing or for slaughtering."
,k92a_10:" The cost of an animal for work is much higher than one for food only."
,k92a_11:" Lit., 'how the monies are."
,k92a_12:" In either case the animal is worth the price paid for it; why, then, should Rab differ from Samuel by declaring such a deal to be invalid?"
,k92a_13:" Of killing the animal and selling it. For this reason, Rab declares the sale invalid and requires the seller to return the purchase price."
,k92a_14:" That the seller is required to return the money he received. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vi">CHAPTER VI</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF] ANYONE HAS SOLD FRUIT TO ANOTHER [NOT SPECIFYING WHETHER AS FOOD OR SEED], AND [THE BUYER] SOWED THEM AND THEY DID NOT GROW, EVEN [IF THEY WERE] LINSEED,<a id="k92a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE.<a id="k92a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: FOR GARDEN SEEDS WHICH ARE NOT EATEN, HE<a id="k92a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; IS RESPONSIBLE.<a id="k92a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. It has been stated:<a id="k92a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] one has sold an ox to another, and it was found to have been wont to gore.<a id="k92a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said, the [sale] is under false pretences.<a id="k92a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; But Samuel said: [The seller] can say to him, 'I have sold it to you for [the purpose of] slaughtering'.<a id="k92a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; But [cannot the object of the sale] be seen [from the following]? If [he is] a man that buys for slaughtering [then this sale also must have been] for [the purpose of] slaughtering; [and] if for ploughing, [it must have been] for [the purpose of] ploughing. [why then, should there be a dispute between Rab and Samuel]? &mdash; [This dispute relates to the case] of a man who buys for both.<a id="k92a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But why not see what price<a id="k92a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; was paid?<a id="k92a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The dispute is applicable [to the case] when the price of meat has risen and stands at [the same level as] the price of [an animal for] ploughing. If so, what difference is there [whether the animal was bought for ploughing or slaughtering]?<a id="k92a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [There is] a difference [in respect] of the trouble.<a id="k92a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; How is this<a id="k92a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; to be understood?
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k92b_1:" Why, then, should the ox, according to Rab who considers the sale invalid, be returned to the seller?"
,k92b_2:" Cf. B.K. 46b; B.M. 118a."
,k92b_3:" Lit., 'majority'."
,k92b_4:" The mnemonic aids in the recollection of the following quotations from which objections were raised to Rab's or Samuel's opinion."
,k92b_5:" V. n. 23. <i>infra</i>."
,k92b_6:" The husband."
,k92b_7:" V. n. 13."
,k92b_8:" Heb., henuma, [G]. Virgin brides were carried out of their father's home on the wedding day in a curtained litter."
,k92b_9:" A virgin bride walked to her wedding canopy with 'uncovered head', [H] which others render, 'loosened hair'."
,k92b_10:" The endowment or settlement which a wife is entitled to receive on being divorced or on the death of her husband. A woman who married as a virgin is entitled to two hundred <I>zuz</I>; if as a widow, to one hundred <I>zuz</I> only."
,k92b_11:" Keth. 15b."
,k92b_12:" V. p. 382. n. 13."
,k92b_13:" As Rab said in the case of the sale of the ox."
,k92b_14:" As evidenced by the fact that no witnesses are forthcoming."
,k92b_15:" And she is assumed to belong to the minority."
,k92b_16:" For if she had married as a virgin the marriage would have been known."
,k92b_17:" Tosef. Kid. IV, Kid., 11a."
,k92b_18:" [H] cf. [G] 'gambler', [G] 'crafty person'."
,k92b_19:" Lit., 'he reached him'."
,k92b_20:" I.e., 'sentenced to death'."
,k92b_21:" Lit., 'Here is yours before you, and the seller must return the purchase money. "
}

txt:
<p>
If there is no [capital] from which [the buyer] may be reimbursed, let the ox be retained for the money;<a id="k92b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; as people say.<a id="k92b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'from your debtor accept [even] bran in payment'! &mdash; [The dispute between Rab and Samuel] is required only [in the case] where there is [capital] from which [the buyer] may be reimbursed. [In such a case] Rab said: The deal was made under false pretences [because] one must be guided by the general practice<a id="k92b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and most people buy [oxen] for ploughing. But Samuel said [in reply]: One is guided by the general practice in ritual, but not in monetary matters.
</p><p>
	(Mnemonic:<a id="k92b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>A woman and a slave, an ox, oxen and fruit</I>.)
</p><p>
	An objection was raised: [If] a woman has become a widow or has been divorced, and she claims, 'I was married [as] a virgin',<a id="k92b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and he<a id="k92b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; says [to her]. '[It was] not so, but I married you [as] a widow',<a id="k92b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; if there are witnesses that she left [her father's house for the wedding ceremony] in a curtained litter,<a id="k92b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; or with uncovered head,<a id="k92b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; she [is entitled to] a <i>kethubah</i><a id="k92b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; of two hundred [<I>zuz</I>].<a id="k92b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, the reason [why she receives two hundred <I>zuz</I> is] that there were witnesses but, [it may be inferred], had there been no witnesses, [she would] not [have been entitled to the higher settlement];<a id="k92b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; why should it not be said,<a id="k92b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Be guided by [what] most women [do]', and most women marry [as] virgins? Rabina said: Because It may be assumed [on the one hand], that the majority of women marry [as] virgins and a minority [as] widows, and, [on the other hand, that] whenever [a woman] marries [as] a virgin [the fact] is known; [consequently] since in her case [the fact] is not known,<a id="k92b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the majority principle, as applied to her, is impaired.<a id="k92b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [But] if, [as you have said], all who marry [as] virgins are known [to have so married], what use are witnesses? [Surely], since [the fact that] she [married as a virgin] is not known, they [must] be [regarded as] false witnesses.<a id="k92b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; But, [this is the answer], the majority of those who marry [as] virgins are known [to have so married] and since this one is not known, the majority principle in her case is impaired.
</p><p>
	Come and hear! [It has been taught:]<a id="k92b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] one sold to another a slave who was found to have been a thief or a gambler,<a id="k92b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the sale is valid.<a id="k92b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [If the slave was found to have been] an armed robber or one prescribed by the government '<a id="k92b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [the buyer may] say to him; 'This is yours; take him'.<a id="k92b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Now in the case of] the first clause,
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k102a_1:" Between the first and the third."
,k102a_2:" According to this Tanna, a grotto which forms part of a family grave contains an area of four by eight cubits. If the three corpses were found within four cubits, it is assumed that the wide side of such a grotto had been found. If within eight cubits, the long side of such a grotto is assumed to have been discovered. In either case, the discovery points to the existence of a family grave in that area which is, therefore, to be regarded as a grave. yard, the extent of which must be ascertained."
,k102a_3:" To ascertain whether any other graves are to be found in the vicinity, and to determine the extent of the area that is henceforward to be regarded as Levitically unclean."
,k102a_4:" I.e., the approximate length of the court (six cubits) and of the two grottos that open out from its opposite sides (eight cubits each, according to the Tanna.) The actual length is, of course, twenty two cubits and the discrepancy is discussed in the Gemara."
,k102a_5:" Lit., 'feet' on which to stand."
,k102a_6:" Since one group of graves had already been discovered within twenty cubits."
,k102a_7:" Before the other three corpses, without any further search having had to be made."
,k102a_8:" V, <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k102a_9:" That a spot to be regarded as a graveyard must contain three corpses within four to eight cubits."
,k102a_10:" I.e., the corpses."
,k102a_11:" To constitute the ground as a graveyard."
,k102a_12:" This author [it is who] is of the opinion that according to R. Simeon these are the dimensions."
,k102a_13:" Tho Mishnah of Ohaloth mentioned."
,k102a_14:" The length of the court is six cubits, and the length of each of the two grottos is eight cubits."
,k102a_15:" Though the first clause will still be according to R. Simeon."
,k102a_16:" The length of each grotto is six cubits and that of the court also six."
,k102a_17:" Though the length of the grotto is only six cubits, the diagonal of the area of the graves (the sepulchral chambers) thus searched would be longer. The diagonal of four, (respective lengths of chambers), by six, (length of grotto wall), is more than seven cubits in length &#8730;(4<sup>2</sup> + 6<sup>2</sup>) = &#8730;52, say roughly eight cubits. Add length of court (six cubits) and length of corresponding grotto (six cubits) and the total obtained is roughly twenty."
,k102a_18:" Eight for the diagonal of each grotto and six for the court."
,k102a_19:" Since no corpses were found in the first. "
}

txt:
<p>
If three [corpses] were [similarly] found, [then], if [the distance] between them<a id="k102a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; is from four, to eight [cubits], the area] is [to be considered] a grave-yard;<a id="k102a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and a search<a id="k102a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; must [also] be made [over a distance of] twenty cubits,<a id="k102a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; from that spot onwards. [If] at the end of twenty cubits a corpse is found, a search of [another] twenty cubits from that spot onwards must be made; for there is reasonable ground<a id="k102a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for the assumption<a id="k102a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [that even the single grave is an indication of the existence there of other graves]; although if [the single corpse] had been found first<a id="k102a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it should have been removed together with the earth surrounding it.<a id="k102a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Master stated, 'from four to eight cubits'.<a id="k102a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; According to whom [is this Mishnah]? If according to the Rabbis, surely they said [that the area of a grotto is to be] four cubits by six? If according to R. Simeon, surely he said [that the grotto must contain an area of] six [cubits] by eight? &mdash; [This Mishnah] is, in fact, [in agreement with] R. Simeon; but it is [in accordance with the version of R. Simeon's view as reported by] the following Tanna. For it has been taught: 'If they<a id="k102a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; were found close to one another, and there was not a distance of four to eight cubits between them, the earth surrounding their bodies belongs to them but they do not constitute the ground as a graveyard. R. Simeon b. Judah said in the name of R. Simeon: The intervening ones are regarded as if they did not exist and the rest are combined,<a id="k102a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [if the distance is] from four to eight cubits'.<a id="k102a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Since this<a id="k102a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; has been assumed to be in accordance with R. Simeon, explain the final clause [which reads]: A search must [also] be made [over a distance of] twenty cubits from that spot onwards. According to whom [is this]? If according to R. Simeon, [the distance] should be twenty-two;<a id="k102a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; if according to the Rabbis,<a id="k102a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; it should be eighteen?<a id="k102a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; It may, in fact, be according to the Rabbis but there is a possibility that he made the search diagonally.<a id="k102a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the one [grotto is assumed to be searched] diagonally, the other also [should be assumed to be searched] diagonally [and, consequently, the distance] should be twenty-two [cubits]?<a id="k102a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; One diagonal [search] is expected; two diagonal [searches] are not.<a id="k102a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k102b_1:" The final clause of the Mishnah of Ohaloth requiring a search along a distance of twenty cubits."
,k102b_2:" Who requires the area of a grotto for adults to be six by eight."
,k102b_3:" Miscarriages occupy a grotto which is only six cubits in length. The total length, therefore, is six (grotto for miscarriages), plus eight (the grotto for adults, on the other side of the court), plus six(court), total twenty cubits."
,k102b_4:" Lit., 'that of the Rabbis upon the Rabbis'."
,k102b_5:" Kil. V, 2; <i>supra</i> 37b, 83a."
,k102b_6:" Where the intervening vines are disregarded."
,k102b_7:" All of which are counted."
,k102b_8:" Counting in all the vines."
,k102b_9:" Where the intervening corpses are regarded as if they did not exist."
,k102b_10:" Hence the vines are permanent and cannot be disregarded."
,k102b_11:" With the intention of removing it later. Hence, if by accident the corpse had not been removed, it may be disregarded, and does not prevent the remaining corpses from combining to form a graveyard."
,k102b_12:" No regular burial, however late the hour, would take place in such a manner. The spot, consequently, could not have been a graveyard."
,k102b_13:" Lit., 'sound'."
,k102b_14:" And since a number of the vines have been planted temporarily and will at any moment be pulled out, they may rightly be treated as if they were not in existence."
,k102b_15:" An area of 75,000 square cubits, in which a <i>kor</i> or <i>homer</i> (= 30 <I>se'ah</I>) of seed may be sown."
,k102b_16:" Lit., 'earth'."
,k102b_17:" I.e., lower than, or not as deep as ten handbreadths."
,k102b_18:" An 'inherited' field as distinct from a 'purchased' field. Cf. n. 7."
,k102b_19:" V. Lev. XXV, 8ff."
,k102b_20:" I.e., a <i>kor</i>. Cf. ibid. XXVII, 16. "
}

txt:
<p>
R. Shisha b. R. Idi said: It<a id="k102b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; may, in fact, be in accordance with the view of R. Simeon,<a id="k102b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; but here it dealt with the case of miscarriages.<a id="k102b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But since the one [is] for miscarriages, the other also [should be] for miscarriages, [and the distance] should, [consequently], be eighteen [cubits]! &mdash; One [grotto] for miscarriages is assumed, two [grottos] for miscarriages are not.
</p><p>
	Contradictions were pointed out between two statements of the Rabbis<a id="k102b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and [also] between two statements of R. Simeon. For we learnt:<a id="k102b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] a vineyard is planted on [an area of] less than four cubits, R. Simeon says it is not [regarded as] a vineyard, and the Sages say: [It is regarded as] a vineyard, the intervening vines being treated as if they were not in existence. [Is not the statement] of the Rabbis [there]<a id="k102b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; contradictory to their statement [with reference to corpses];<a id="k102b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and [the statement there] of R. Simeon<a id="k102b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; contradictory to his [statement here]?<a id="k102b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is no contradiction between the two statements of R. Simeon; [for] there, people do not plant [vines] with the object of pulling<a id="k102b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [them] out, [but] here, [a burial] may sometimes take place at twilight and [the corpse] is put down temporarily.<a id="k102b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; There is also no contradiction between the two statements of the Rabbis; [for] here, since [the body] is disgraced, [the spot] cannot be designated a grave,<a id="k102b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [but] there, [the owner, when planting the vines] may think whichever tree will be sound will remain,<a id="k102b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and whichever is a failure will be [used] for firewood.<a id="k102b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_vii">CHAPTER VII</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF ONE SAYS TO ANOTHER: 'I SELL YOU A BETH <I>KOR</I><a id="k102b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; OF ARABLE LAND',<a id="k102b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [AND] IT CONTAINED CLEFTS TEN HANDBREADTHS DEEP, OR ROCKS TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH, THESE ARE NOT TO BE MEASURED WITH IT. [IF THEY ARE] LESS THAN THIS,<a id="k102b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; THEY ARE TO BE MEASURED WITH IT. IF, HOWEVER, HE SAID TO HIM, 'ABOUT A BETH <I>KOR</I> OF ARABLE LAND, EVEN IF [THE LAND] CONTAINED CLEFTS DEEPER THAN TEN, OR ROCKS HIGHER THAN TEN HANDBREADTHS, THEY ARE TO MEASURED WITH IT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. We learnt elsewhere: He who consecrates his field<a id="k102b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; in the time [when the laws] of the jubilee year<a id="k102b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [are in force], must pay for an area in which a <i>homer</i><a id="k102b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of barley may be sown, fifty <i>shekels</i> of silver.<a id="k102b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; If it contained clefts ten handbreadths deep, or rocks ten handbreadths high
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k108a_1:" The big trench alone should suffice to prevent the animal from jumping over the wall."
,k108a_2:" Whoever of these dies first transmits his estate to the other, and whoever survives inherits it."
,k108a_3:" From certain relatives who predecease them."
,k108a_4:" Their estates to these relatives if they die first."
,k108a_5:" From his sons, if they die without leaving any issue."
,k108a_6:" Though not from the same mother."
,k108a_7:" If they die without issue."
,k108a_8:" Because the relatives on his father's side are entitled to the inheritance of his estate."
,k108a_9:" V. Previous note."
,k108a_10:" Their relatives on their respective fathers' sides inherit from them."
,k108a_11:" Lit., 'one'."
,k108a_12:" The death of a son in his father's lifetime. "
}

txt:
<p>
in order that an animal may not jump [over the wall]. Let, then, the big trench be made<a id="k108a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and not [also] the small one? &mdash; Since it is wide, [the animal] might stand in it and jump. Then let the smaller trench be made and not the bigger one? Since it is small, [the animal] might stand on the [outer] edge and jump. How much [space must there be] between the bigger, and the smaller trench? &mdash; One handbreadth.
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_viii">CHAPTER VIII</A>
      </H2>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. SOME [RELATIVES] INHERIT [FROM], AND TRANSMIT [TO EACH OTHER];<a id="k108a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; SOME INHERIT<a id="k108a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT DO NOT TRANSMIT;<a id="k108a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [SOME] TRANSMIT RUT DO NOT INHERIT, [AND SOME] NEITHER INHERIT NOR TRANSMIT. THE FOLLOWING INHERIT [FROM], AND TRANSMIT [TO EACH OTHER]: A FATHER [INHERITS FROM,<a id="k108a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; AND TRANSMITS TO HIS] SONS, AND SONS [INHERIT FROM, AND TRANSMIT TO THEIR] FATHER; AND BROTHERS FROM THE [SAME] FATHER<a id="k108a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; INHERIT [FROM], AND TRANSMIT [TO EACH OTHER].<a id="k108a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; A MAN [INHERITS FROM] HIS MOTHER AND [FROM] HIS WIFE [BUT DOES NOT TRANSMIT HIS ESTATE TO THEM<a id="k108a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; IF HE DIES FIRST]; AND SISTERS' SONS INHERIT [FROM THEIR UNCLES] BUT DO NOT TRANSMIT [THEIR ESTATES TO THEM].<a id="k108a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; A WOMAN [TRANSMITS HER ESTATE TO] HER SONS AND A WIFE [TO] HER HUSBAND [BUT THEY DO NOT INHERIT FROM THEM]; AND MOTHER'S BROTHERS TRANSMIT [THEIR ESTATES TO THEIR NEPHEWS] BUT DO NOT INHERIT [FROM] THEM. AND BROTHERS FROM THE [SAME] MOTHER NEITHER INHERIT [FROM], NOR TRANSMIT [TO EACH OTHER].<a id="k108a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why does the Mishnah teach first, THE FATHER [INHERITS FROM, AND TRANSMITS TO HIS] SONS, let it first teach, THE SONS [INHERIT FROM, AND TRANSMIT TO THEIR] FATHER, for, in the first place,<a id="k108a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; one should not commence with [something suggestive of] misfortune<a id="k108a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k108b_1:" Lit., 'and furthermore'."
,k108b_2:" Num. XXVII, 8. This implies that if a father leaves a son, the latter inherits from him. Now, since the Scripture begins with the case of a son inheriting from his father the Tanna of our Mishnah should have done likewise!"
,k108b_3:" Lit., 'beloved to him'."
,k108b_4:" Num. XXVII, 11. Ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman."
,k108b_5:" If the dead man is survived by a father and brothers, his estate is inherited by the former."
,k108b_6:" Ibid."
,k108b_7:" A son is a nearer relative than a father."
,k108b_8:" Lit., 'what have you seen?'"
,k108b_9:" I.e., regarding him as the nearest relative, taking precedence over father and brothers."
,k108b_10:" Lit., 'for so'."
,k108b_11:" The master of a Hebrew handmaid may designate her to be his wife, and there is no need for him to betroth her in the usual manner. His son also, 'if she please not her user', may designate her to be his wife, in the same way as his father. No brother or any other person has the same privileges. Cf. Ex. XXI, 7ff."
,k108b_12:" If a man sanctifies onto the Lord a field of his possession, he or his son may redeem it. If a brother, however, or any other person has redeemed the field, it returns to the priests in the jubilee year. Cf. Lev. XXVII, 16ff."
,k108b_13:" The law requiring a person to marry the widow of a brother who dies without issue. Cf. Deut. XXV, 5ff. A son, of course, cannot have this right or privilege."
,k108b_14:" Consequently, even as regards levirate marriages, a son stands nearer, and is in a more privileged position than a brother."
,k108b_15:" 'Surely levirate etc.'"
,k108b_16:" That a son takes precedence over a brother. "
}

txt:
<p>
and, secondly,<a id="k108b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [one should follow the order of the Torah,] as it is written, If a man die and have no son?<a id="k108b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Tanna prefers<a id="k108b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [to begin with the case of a father who is heir to his son] because this [law] has been arrived at through an exposition. What is the exposition? &mdash; It has been taught: His kinsman,<a id="k108b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; refers to the [dead man's] father. This teaches that a father takes precedence<a id="k108b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; over brothers. One might [assume] that he also takes precedence over a son, [therefore] it was expressly stated, that is next [to him],<a id="k108b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [which implies] he who is nearest<a id="k108b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; takes precedence. What reason is there<a id="k108b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; for including the son<a id="k108b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and excluding the brother? &mdash; The son is included because, as is known,<a id="k108b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he is [entitled] to take his father's place in designating [the Hebrew handmaid of his father to be his wife],<a id="k108b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and [also in the redeeming] of a field of [his father's] possession.<a id="k108b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; On the contrary! [Rather say:] 'The brother is included because he also takes the place of his brother in the case of a levirate marriage.'<a id="k108b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely levirate marriage only takes place where there is no son, but where there is a son there is no levirate marriage.<a id="k108b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[From what has been said it appears] that the [only] reason [for the precedence of a son is] that there is this reply,<a id="k108b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but had it not [been] so, it would have been held [that] a brother takes precedence, [but cannot] this [law]<a id="k108b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; be deduced
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k139a_1:" Tosef. Keth. VIII."
,k139a_2:" In a field that was sold by a son to whom his father had assigned it during his lifetime."
,k139a_3:" After the death of the father."
,k139a_4:" I.e., the buyer must pay the price, at which the fruit was valued, to the heirs. This proves that even attached fruit does not belong to him to whom the soil belongs but to the heirs. In the case, then, of our Mishnah also, attached fruit should belong to all the heirs."
,k139a_5:" In our Mishnah."
,k139a_6:" Where the estate was assigned by a father to a son, and the latter did not sell it to another person."
,k139a_7:" Lit., 'here', i.e., the cited Tosefta of <i>Kethuboth</i>."
,k139a_8:" When the son had sold the estate to a stranger, or the father had assigned it to a stranger as a gift, reserving the usufruct for himself during his lifetime."
,k139a_9:" Hence he allows him not only the ground itself but also the fruit attached to it."
,k139a_10:" And did not provide in a will for the disposal of his estate."
,k139a_11:" I.e., provided with clothing and the like."
,k139a_12:" Lit., 'through the hands of'."
,k139a_13:" I.e., out of the general proceeds of the estate before it had been divided between the heirs. Sons who are of age require a greater allowance for their clothing than minors; and this they must provide out of their own shares."
,k139a_14:" Lit., 'by'."
,k139a_15:" Cf. n. 10, <i>supra</i>. Minors require less for clothing but more for food."
,k139a_16:" I.e., before the estate has been divided, neither the minors, who require a greater allowance for food, nor those of age, who require more for their clothing, though less for their actual food, may draw for their extra requirements upon the common funds, which must be equally divided between all of them."
,k139a_17:" After their father's death, defraying the marriage expenses out of the undivided estate."
,k139a_18:" Out of the common funds of the estate."
,k139a_19:" After their father's death."
,k139a_20:" I.e., if the minors wish to spend on their marriages, out of the general funds of the estate, as much as the older brothers had spent on their marriages during their father's lifetime."
,k139a_21:" Lit., 'they do not listen to them'."
,k139a_22:" To the older brothers during his lifetime."
,k139a_23:" Lit., 'given'."
,k139a_24:" V. <a href=\"#139a_11\">p. 588, n. 8</a>."
,k139a_25:" <i>Loc. cit</i>, <a href=\"#139a_12\">n, 9</a>."
,k139a_26:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_13\">n. 10</a>."
,k139a_27:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_14\">n. 11</a>."
,k139a_28:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_15\">n. 12</a>."
,k139a_29:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_17\">n. 14</a>."
,k139a_30:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_18\">n. 15</a>."
,k139a_31:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_19\">n. 16</a>."
,k139a_32:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_20\">n. 17</a>."
,k139a_33:" <i>Loc. cit</i>. <a href=\"#139a_4\">n. 1</a>."
,k139a_34:" Lit., 'this'."
,k139a_35:" Who inherited their father's estate in the absence of sons."
,k139a_36:" Where there are born sons and daughters."
,k139a_37:" in the case where the sons inherited a large estate, v. <i>infra</i> 139b."
,k139a_38:" I.e., if older and younger daughters, in the absence of sons, inherited the estate, the latter are not to be fed from the general funds of the estate."
,k139a_39:" Lit., 'This'."
,k139a_40:" Who manages the estate."
,k139a_41:" Lit., 'dressed and covered himself out of the house'."
,k139a_42:" Lit., what he has done is done'. Though it is not proper for him to make personal expenses out of the common funds, the brothers cannot, after the amount had been spent, claim its return; since it is important for him, as the manager of the estate, to dress well."
,k139a_43:" [H] (edd. [H]), 'a man at ease'; one who is not in any way engaged in the improvement of the estate or in the increase of its value."
,k139a_44:" If he is of no use to the management or maintenance of the estate, what possible claim can he have upon the general funds in respect of his personal dress?"
,k139a_45:" Through the wearing of unbecoming clothes, and would thus agree to beat the expense."
,k139a_46:" This, surely, seems to be in contradiction to the following clause, 'If the minors, however, claimed \"we desire to take as much as you have taken\", their request is disregarded'."
,k139a_47:" A similar sum towards their marriage expenses."
,k139a_48:" Lit., 'and ate it and stood up'."
,k139a_49:" And thus transferred all her possessions to her husband."
,k139a_50:" Of the property brought to him by his wife."
,k139a_51:" Of the married sisters; which proves that the husbands are regarded as heirs, not as buyers. The claim of the minors is now assumed to have the same force as that of a verbal loan which cannot be collected from a buyer."
,k139a_52:" Out of the residue of the estate; not from their sisters' husbands who are regarded as buyers, not as heirs."
,k139a_53:" I.e., the husbands cannot be regarded as buyers."
,k139a_54:" V. p. 590. n. 5."
,k139a_55:" Had these been regarded as buyers, the minors who have the status of a creditor of a verbal loan, could not have taken anything from them."
,k139a_56:" The right of the minors to be maintained out of their father's estate."
,k139a_57:" From a verbal loan."
,k139a_58:" Lit., 'it has a voice', i.e., people well know the fact that the deceased had left minors who are entirely dependent on his estate for their maintenance. Hence the husbands of the elder daughters are assumed to have known the fact. Consequently, the claim of the minors is not to be compared to that of a verbal loan but to one given under a written note of indebtedness, in which case it may be collected even from a buyer of the estate, v. <i>infra</i> 175a."
,k139a_59:" Who had attempted to prove above, from R. Hiyya's statement, that a husband is regarded as an heir."
,k139a_60:" That a husband has the status of an heir."
,k139a_61:" From Palestine to Babylon"
,k139a_62:" in accordance with his undertaking in the <i>kethubah</i> which is given to one's wife."
,k139a_63:" And thus transferred the estate into her husband's possession."
,k139a_64:" And her husband inherited her possessions."
,k139a_65:" Lit., 'they said'."
,k139a_66:" Lit., 'you said'."
,k139a_67:" The husband of the daughter, and so every husband."
,k139a_68:" Of the property that his wife had brought to him; even during her lifetime."
,k139a_69:" Her dead husband's, even if it passed into the possession of her daughter's husband."
,k139a_70:" Since the amount required for the maintenance of a widow, may be collected from her husband's heirs."
,k139a_71:" Surely a widow's maintenance cannot be collected from the buyers of her husband's property (Cf. Git. 48b)"
,k139a_72:" That a husband is regarded as an heir."
,k139a_73:" Bek. 52b."
,k139a_74:" When all landed property that has been sold returns to its original owner. V., Lev. XXV, 28, 31. "
}

txt:
<p>
Surely it was taught:<a id="k139a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the fruit attached [to the ground].<a id="k139a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; is valued<a id="k139a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; for the buyer!<a id="k139a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Ulla replied: There is no difficulty Here<a id="k139a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [the law deals] with one's [own] son;<a id="k139a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; there<a id="k139a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [it deals] with a stranger.<a id="k139a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [In the former case, attached fruit belongs to the son] because a person is favourably disposed towards his son.<a id="k139a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IF] ONE LEFT SONS<a id="k139a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [WHO WERE] OF AGE, AS WELL AS MINORS, THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED<a id="k139a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; AT THE EXPENSE OF<a id="k139a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; THE MINORS,<a id="k139a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR ARE THE MINORS TO BE FED AT THE EXPENSE OF<a id="k139a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE,<a id="k139a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT ALL RECEIVE EQUAL SHARES] IN THE ENTIRE ESTATE].<a id="k139a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF] THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE MARRIED,<a id="k139a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE [A SIMILAR SUM TOWARDS THEIR MARRIAGE EXPENSES].<a id="k139a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE MINORS, HOWEVER, CLAIMED,<a id="k139a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; 'WE DESIRE TO TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE TAKEN',<a id="k139a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED<a id="k139a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT WHAT THEIR FATHER HAD GIVEN THEM<a id="k139a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IS REGARDED AS A GIFT.<a id="k139a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF] ONE LEFT DAUGHTERS [WHO WERE] OF AGE, AS WELL AS MINORS THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED<a id="k139a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; AT THE EXPENSE<a id="k139a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; OF THE MINORS,<a id="k139a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR ARE THE MINORS TO BE FED AT THE EXPENSE<a id="k139a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; OF THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE.<a id="k139a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT ALL RECEIVE EQUAL SHARES [IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE]. [IF] THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE MARRIED,<a id="k139a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE [A SIMILAR SUM TOWARDS THEIR MARRIAGE EXPENSES].<a id="k139a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE MINORS, HOWEVER, CLAIMED,<a id="k139a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; 'WE DESIRE TO TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE TAKEN',<a id="k139a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED.<a id="k139a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; IN THE FOLLOWING RESPECT<a id="k139a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; DAUGHTERS<a id="k139a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; ARE OF GRATER IMPORTANCE THAN SONS.<a id="k139a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR DAUGHTERS ARE FED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SONS<a id="k139a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF [OTHER] DAUGHTERS.<a id="k139a_38"><sup>38</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Raba said: If<a id="k139a_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; the eldest of the brothers<a id="k139a_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; drew upon the general funds of the estate for his dress and outfit,<a id="k139a_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; his action cannot be disputed.<a id="k139a_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; But surely, we learnt, THOSE WHO ARE OF AGE ARE NOT TO BE SUPPORTED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MINORS! &mdash; Our Mishnah [refers] to [those who are] without a calling.<a id="k139a_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [In the case of] one without a calling, [is this not] obvious!<a id="k139a_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [Since] it might have been assumed that [the brothers] desire that he should not be disgraced<a id="k139a_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; it was necessary to teach us [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	IF THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE MARRIED, THE MINORS ALSO MAY TAKE. What does this mean?<a id="k139a_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah replied, it is this that was meant: IF THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE HAD MARRIED after the death of their father, THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE<a id="k139a_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; after the death of their father; if, however, those who were of age had married during the lifetime of their father, and the MINORS after the death of their father, CLAIMED, 'WE DESIRE TO TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU HAVE TAKEN', THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED BUT WHAT THEIR FATHER HAD GIVEN THEM IS REGARDED AS A LEGAL GIFT.
</p><p>
	[IF] ONE LEFT DAUGHTERS [WHO WERE] OF AGE, AS WELL AS MINORS. Abbuha b. Geniba sent to Raba: Will our Master teach us, [in the case of a woman who] took a loan and spent it, and thereupon<a id="k139a_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; married,<a id="k139a_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; [whether] the husband has [the legal] status of a buyer<a id="k139a_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; or that of an heir? Is he [regarded as] a buyer [and consequently he need not repay her debt] since a verbal loan cannot be collected from a buyer; or is he, perhaps, regarded as an heir, [who must pay her debt], since a verbal loan may be collected from heirs? &mdash; He replied to him: We have learned this in our Mishnah, [IF] THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE MARRIED, THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE; does not [this mean that] IF THOSE WHO WERE OF AGE [WERE] MARRIED to husbands, THE MINORS MAY TAKE [towards their marriage expenses] from the husbands?<a id="k139a_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; [this may mean that] IF THOSE [WHO WERE] OF AGE [WERE] MARRIED to husbands, THE MINORS [ALSO] MAY TAKE<a id="k139a_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; [a similar sum towards the expenses of their marriage] to husbands. [But] this is not [so];<a id="k139a_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; for, surely, R. Hiyya taught: [If] those who were of age had married husbands,<a id="k139a_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; the minors may take [their due] from [those] husbands!<a id="k139a_55"><sup>55</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is possible that maintenance<a id="k139a_56"><sup>56</sup></a>&nbsp; is different,<a id="k139a_57"><sup>57</sup></a>&nbsp; since such [an obligation] is generally known.<a id="k139a_58"><sup>58</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa said to Raba:<a id="k139a_59"><sup>59</sup></a>&nbsp; Is not this<a id="k139a_60"><sup>60</sup></a>&nbsp; the very [case] which Rabin had sent in his letter?<a id="k139a_61"><sup>61</sup></a>&nbsp; If a person died, [he wrote], and left a widow and a daughter, his widow is to receive her maintenance out of his estate.<a id="k139a_62"><sup>62</sup></a>&nbsp; [If] the daughter married,<a id="k139a_63"><sup>63</sup></a>&nbsp; his widow is [still] to receive her maintenance out of his estate. [If] the daughter died?<a id="k139a_64"><sup>64</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab Judah, the son of the sister of R. Jose b. Hanina, said: I had [such] a case, and it was decided<a id="k139a_65"><sup>65</sup></a>&nbsp; [that] his widow is to receive her maintenance out of his estate. [Now,] if it be granted<a id="k139a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; that he<a id="k139a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; is [regarded as] an heir,<a id="k139a_68"><sup>68</sup></a>&nbsp; it is quite correct that his widow should be maintained out of his<a id="k139a_69"><sup>69</sup></a>&nbsp; estate;<a id="k139a_70"><sup>70</sup></a>&nbsp; if, however, it is held<a id="k139a_66"><sup>66</sup></a>&nbsp; that he<a id="k139a_67"><sup>67</sup></a>&nbsp; is [regarded as] a buyer, why should she be maintained out of his estate!<a id="k139a_71"><sup>71</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Abaye said: Would we not have known [this]<a id="k139a_72"><sup>72</sup></a>&nbsp; if Rabin had not sent [his letter]? Surely we learnt:<a id="k139a_73"><sup>73</sup></a>&nbsp; The following do not return in the Jubilee year:<a id="k139a_74"><sup>74</sup></a>&nbsp; The [portion of] the birthright,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k139b_1:" This clearly proves that a husband is regarded as heir. For had he been regarded as a buyer of the property that was brought to him by his wife, he would have retained that status even after her death; and all her landed possessions, as all landed property bought, would have had to be returned in the Jubilee year to their original owner."
,k139b_2:" V. note 2."
,k139b_3:" Keth. 50a, 78b; B.K. 88b; B.M. 35a; 96b; <i>supra</i> 50a."
,k139b_4:" V. p. 207, n. 3."
,k139b_5:" Property which belongs to her, while the right of usufruct is enjoyed by the husband, v. p. 206, n. 7."
,k139b_6:" Which proves that a husband has the status of a buyer. An heir could not seize property sold."
,k139b_7:" Lit., 'they made him'."
,k139b_8:" Lit., 'and they did as it was better for him'."
,k139b_9:" That he shall not be compelled to return what he inherited from his wife to her family."
,k139b_10:" So that he shall be entitled to seize the property from anyone who bought it."
,k139b_11:" The husband's undertaking to provide for his wife's maintenance preceded the marriage. Hence her claim must receive priority."
,k139b_12:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k139b_13:" Why were not the interests of the buyers taken into consideration as much as those of the widow?"
,k139b_14:" In the case of R. Jose."
,k139b_15:" The buyers."
,k139b_16:" Lit., 'there is'."
,k139b_17:" Lit., 'who dwells under a man', i.e., whose property is subject to the claims of a husband to whom it will finally pass over after her death. These buyers contrived to deprive him of his right by purchasing the property during her lifetime, hence they must stand the loss."
,k139b_18:" Lit., 'possessions are many'."
,k139b_19:" Until they marry or become of age."
,k139b_20:" Lit., 'begging at the doors'."
,k139b_21:" Lit., 'I see the words of Admon'."
,k139b_22:" Lit., 'and how much (are) many'."
,k139b_23:" Lit., 'these and these', the sons and the daughters."
,k139b_24:" When, after the death of Rab, he joined for some time Samuel's academy."
,k139b_25:" From Palestine to Babylon. "
}

txt:
<p>
and that [which a husband] inherits [from] his wife!<a id="k139b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said to him: And now that he did send [his letter] do we know [this]?<a id="k139b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely R. Jose b. Hanina stated:<a id="k139b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; At Usha<a id="k139b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; it was ordained [that if] a woman had sold during the lifetime of her husband, usufruct property,<a id="k139b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and died, the husband may seize them from the buyers?<a id="k139b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; But, said R. Ashi, the Rabbis have given a husband the status<a id="k139b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; of an heir and [also the status of] a buyer; and whichever was better for him they gave him.<a id="k139b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; In respect of the Jubilee year, the Rabbis gave him the status of an heir, in order [to prevent] loss to him.<a id="k139b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; In the case of [the statement of] R. Jose b. Hanina, the Rabbis gave him the status of a buyer [also] in order [to avert] loss to him.<a id="k139b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; In respect of [the statement of] Rabin, [however], in order [to avert] a loss to the widow, the Rabbis gave him the status of an heir.<a id="k139b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But, surely, in the case of R. Jose b. Hanina, where the buyers suffer<a id="k139b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; loss, the Rabbis had yet given him the status of a buyer!<a id="k139b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There,<a id="k139b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; they<a id="k139b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; caused the loss to themselves; for since [it was known that] a husband was involved,<a id="k139b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; they should not have bought from a woman who is subject to a husband's jurisdiction.<a id="k139b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_ix">CHAPTER IX</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. [IN THE CASE OF] ONE WHO DIES AND LEAVES SONS AND DAUGHTERS, IF THE ESTATE IS LARGE,<a id="k139b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; THE SONS INHERIT [IT], AND THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED [FROM IT].<a id="k139b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [IF] THE ESTATE IS SMALL, THE DAUGHTERS ARE MAINTAINED [FROM IT], AND THE SONS SHALL GO BEGGING.<a id="k139b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; ADMON SAID, 'AM I TO BE THE LOSER BECAUSE I AM A MALE!' R. GAMALIEL SAID: ADMON'S VIEW HAS MY APPROVAL.<a id="k139b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. What is considered a large estate?<a id="k139b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Out of which both<a id="k139b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; may be maintained for twelve months. When I recited this before Samuel,<a id="k139b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; he said, 'This is the view of R. Gamaliel b. Rabbi, but the Sages say that [the estate must be large enough] to provide for the maintenance of both<a id="k139b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; until they reach their majority'. [So] it was also stated [else. where]: When Rabin came,<a id="k139b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; he said in the name of R. Johanan, (others say [that it was] Rabbah b. Bar Hanah [who] said it in the name of R. Johanan): When [the estate is large enough] to provide for the maintenance of both until they have reached their majority, It is [considered] large; if less, it is regarded as small. And if [the estate] does not suffice for both until they have reached their majority,
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k160a_1:" [H], an ordinary deed or note, relating, e.g., to a debt or divorce, all the writing of which appears <I>on one side</I> of the document."
,k160a_2:" [H] or [H], lit., 'knotted', i.e., stitched. This was a special form of deed, written on alternate lines, blank lines and written lines alternating. Each written line was folded over the blank line adjacent to it, each successive two being stitched together."
,k160a_3:" Each fold must bear on its external upper side the signature of a different witness, the number of folds not to exceed the number of witnesses."
,k160a_4:" Lit., 'whose witnesses wrote on its back'."
,k160a_5:" If it is a bill of divorce, the woman cannot be divorced by it; and if it is a bond of indebtedness, the creditor is not entitled to seize any of the debtor's sold lands."
,k160a_6:" By removing the stitches."
,k160a_7:" Lit., 'like'."
,k160a_8:" Lit., 'its witnesses by two'. [Meir Abulafia, in his Yad Ramah, explains 'a folded deed' differently. 'We take,' he writes, 'a long scroll, and draw from it three to seven thongs below which there comes the written text of the deed. The deed is then folded, special care being taken that the bottom of the reverse of the deed should remain exposed for the signatures of the witnesses. The scroll being rolled together and fastened by the thongs which are knotted together, the witnesses sign between the knots.' This, as Fischer, L. (ZAW. XXX, 139ff.) points out, is in accord with the 'folded deeds' discovered among the Greek papyri. V. also his article in <I>Jahrb. de Jud. Lit., Gesel</I>. IX. 51ff.]"
,k160a_9:" The folded deed contained two elements. The specific (date and amount), and the Formula which is common to all deeds. The first element usually occupied three lines which were folded on the intervening blank lines and stitched together. Hence no less than three witnesses were required. Cf. <i>infra</i> n. 14."
,k160a_10:" That there are two kinds of deeds differing from each other in the number of witnesses and the mode of folding."
,k160a_11:" Jer. XXXII, 44. "
}

txt:
<p>
      <H2 ALIGN="Center">
	<A NAME="chapter_x">CHAPTER X</A>
      </H2>

</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A PLAIN DEED<a id="k160a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [MUST BEAR THE SIGNATURES OF] THE WITNESSES ON ITS INSIDE; A FOLDED ONE<a id="k160a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [MUST BEAR THE SIGNATURES OF] THE WITNESSES ON THE REVERSE.<a id="k160a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; A PLAIN [ONE] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF THE WITNESSES ON THE REVERSE<a id="k160a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [AND] A FOLDED [ONE] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF ITS WITNESSES ON THE INSIDE ARE BOTH INVALID.<a id="k160a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. HANINA B. GAMALIEL SAID: A FOLDED [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF THE WITNESSES ON ITS INSIDE IS VALID, BECAUSE IT CAN BE TURNED INTO A PLAIN [ONE].<a id="k160a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: ALL DEPENDS ON<a id="k160a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; THE USAGE OF THE COUNTRY. A PLAIN DEED REQUIRES TWO WITNESSES<a id="k160a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; AND A FOLDED [ONE] THREE.<a id="k160a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; A PLAIN [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE WITNESS [ONLY]. AND A FOLDED [ONE] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES [ONLY] ARE BOTH INVALID.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Whence these words?<a id="k160a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Hanina said: For Scripture says, <I>Men shall buy fields for money and subscribe the deeds, and seal them, and procure the evidence of witnesses.<a id="k160a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Men shall buy fields for money and subscribe the deeds,</I>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k160b_1:" Lit., 'this'."
,k160b_2:" [H] seal, close, tie up."
,k160b_3:" The minimum number of witnesses. All evidence must be given by no less than two witnesses unless the contrary has been specifically indicated. (V. Sot. 2b)."
,k160b_4:" The minimum number above two that has already been mentioned."
,k160b_5:" That two, as well as three witnesses are required."
,k160b_6:" Two witnesses for a folded deed and three for a plain one."
,k160b_7:" I.e., since Scripture surrounded the folded deed with more restrictions."
,k160b_8:" V. <i>supra</i> n. 1."
,k160b_9:" Lit., 'from here'."
,k160b_10:" Jer. XXXII. 11."
,k160b_11:" Lit., 'this'."
,k160b_12:" The folded deed, beside the date and amount which were entered in the first lines which were folded and stitched, also contained the formula, common to all deeds, which was entered in the same manner as on a plain deed. This second element is, 'the plain in the folded'. Cf. <i>Supra</i> p. 699, n. 9."
,k160b_13:" Lit., 'these'."
,k160b_14:" Lit., 'which between'."
,k160b_15:" Lit., 'to'."
,k160b_16:" Lit., 'how this'."
,k160b_17:" Lit., 'this'."
,k160b_18:" Lit., 'its witnesses'."
,k160b_19:" V. p. 700, n. 8."
,k160b_20:" V. l.c n. 9."
,k160b_21:" V. l.c., n. 1."
,k160b_22:" Lit., 'from here'."
,k160b_23:" Deut. XIX, 15."
,k160b_24:" To indicate the differences between the two kinds of deeds."
,k160b_25:" Lit., 'and these'."
,k160b_26:" Lit., that they came'."
,k160b_27:" Lit., 'that it came'."
,k160b_28:" Lit., 'For its thing'."
,k160b_29:" Jer. XXXII, 44."
,k160b_30:" Lit., 'he taught us'. The text is a guide to purchasers how to proceed with such transactions. Cf. <i>supra</i> 28b."
,k160b_31:" Jer. XXXII, 21."
,k160b_32:" Deut. XIX, 15."
,k160b_33:" That three witnesses have no more powers or privileges than two."
,k160b_34:" Cf. Mak. 5b."
,k160b_35:" How, then, could these same verses be said to refer to the laws of folded and plain deeds?"
,k160b_36:" [H] 'support', i.e., the Scriptural text was used by the Rabbis as some slight support, or mnemotechnical aid to the laws of the plain and folded deeds which they themselves have enacted."
,k160b_37:" For the slightest or imaginary provocation. A plain bill of divorce was easily obtainable, and once the divorce had taken place none could re-marry his wife, since a divorced woman is forbidden to a priest. Cf. Lev. XXI, 7."
,k160b_38:" The folded bill of divorce."
,k160b_39:" While the elaborate document was being prepared, written, folded, stitched and signed."
,k160b_40:" And reconsider their hasty decisions."
,k160b_41:" Lit., 'is there to be said'."
,k160b_42:" The assumption at present is that they sign on the blank spaces between the written lines on the obverse of the deed."
,k160b_43:" Of the document."
,k160b_44:" The date."
,k160b_45:" That the witnesses sign between the written lines on the inside and that their signatures are consequently folded and stitched in the same way as the date."
,k160b_46:" Hence the signatures may be seen without ripping open the stitched folds. [According to the description of the folded deed given by the Yad Ramah, the signatures would appear as in fig. 2, p. 704.]"
,k160b_47:" Which is left unfolded. (Cf. <i>supra</i> p. 700. n. 14.)"
,k160b_48:" On the external sides of the folds of the upper section. Since the signatures do not appear at the foot of the deed, there is no guarantee that the holder would not add anything he pleased."
,k160b_49:" This formula appears at the foot of every deed, and anything added after it would be detected at once as a forgery."
,k160b_50:" Lit., 'one firm etc. we write."
,k160b_51:" Lit., 'two'. Cf. previous note. Hence the forgery would be detected by the double entry of the formula."
,k160b_52:" Lit., 'write'."
,k160b_53:" Or words, inserted between the lines of a deed."
,k160b_54:" At the foot of the deed."
,k160b_55:" And the deed is valid. "
}

txt:
<p>
refers to<a id="k160b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the plain [deed]; and seal<a id="k160b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; them, refers to<a id="k160b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the folded [one]; <I>and procure the evidence</I>, [implies] two [witnesses]<a id="k160b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; witnesses, [implies] three.<a id="k160b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; How [is] this<a id="k160b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [possible]? Two for a folded [deed]; three for a plain [one]. Might not this be reversed?<a id="k160b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Since it has more folds,<a id="k160b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it [must also] have more witnesses.
</p><p>
	Rafram said: [It<a id="k160b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; may be derived] from the following.<a id="k160b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>So I took the deed of the purchase, both that which was sealed, containing the terms and conditions, and that which was open</I>.<a id="k160b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; So I took the deed of the purchase, refers to<a id="k160b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the plain [deed]; that which was sealed, refers to the folded [one]; and that which was open. refers to the plain [portion] in the folded [deed];<a id="k160b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>the terms and conditions</I>, refers to<a id="k160b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the laws which distinguish<a id="k160b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; the plain [deed] from<a id="k160b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the folded [one]. viz.,<a id="k160b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the one<a id="k160b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [requires] two witnesses<a id="k160b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other,<a id="k160b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; three witnesses;<a id="k160b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; the witnesses of the one [sign] on the obverse, while the witnesses of the other [sign] on the reverse side. Might not this be reversed?<a id="k160b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Since it has more folds<a id="k160b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; it [must also] have more witnesses.
</p><p>
	Rami b. Ezekiel said: [It<a id="k160b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; may be derived] from, the following text.<a id="k160b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the month of three witnesses, shall a matter be established</I>.<a id="k160b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; If their evidence may be established by two, why should three be specified? To tell you [that] two [are required] for a plain [deed]; three for a folded [one]. Might not this be reversed? &mdash; Since it has more folds,<a id="k160b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; it [must also] have more witnesses.
</p><p>
	[Is it] for this [purpose]<a id="k160b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; that the verses<a id="k160b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; [mentioned] were intended?<a id="k160b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [Surely] each one is required<a id="k160b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; for a separate purpose;<a id="k160b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; as it was taught: [By the statement], <I>men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them</I>,<a id="k160b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; good advice was tendered;<a id="k160b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp;<I> so I took the deed of the purchase</I>,<a id="k160b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [is] just [a record of] what had happened; <I>at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses</I>,<a id="k160b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; [has been specified], in order to compare three [witnesses] to two,<a id="k160b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; concerning which<a id="k160b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba and the Rabbis are in dispute!<a id="k160b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; [The fact], however, [is that the law of] a folded [deed] is [only] Rabbinical, and the Scriptural verses [quoted] are a mere <I>asmakta</I>.<a id="k160b_36"><sup>36</sup></a>
</p><p>
	What is the reason why the Rabbis instituted a folded [deed]? &mdash; They were [in] a place [inhabited] by priests, who were very hot-tempered and they divorced their wives.<a id="k160b_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; Consequently the Rabbis made [this] provision,<a id="k160b_38"><sup>38</sup></a>&nbsp; so that in the meantime<a id="k160b_39"><sup>39</sup></a>&nbsp; they might cool down.<a id="k160b_40"><sup>40</sup></a>&nbsp; This satisfactorily explains bills of divorce; what [explanation, however], may be given<a id="k160b_41"><sup>41</sup></a>&nbsp; [in the case of other] documents? &mdash; In order that there may be no distinction between bills of divorce and [other] deeds.
</p><p>
	Where, [in the case of a folded deed], do the witnesses sign? &mdash; R. Huna said: Between [one] fold and the other;<a id="k160b_42"><sup>42</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: [On] the back of the writing and corresponding to [all] the written part, on the external [side of the deed].
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama said to R. Hisda: According to R. Huna who said [that the witnesses sign] 'between [one] fold and the other', assuming [that he meant], 'between [one] fold and the other on the external side'<a id="k160b_43"><sup>43</sup></a>&nbsp; [the following objection may be raised]: Surely, a folded [deed] was once brought before Rabbi who remarked, 'There is no date on this [deed]'. [Thereupon] R. Simeon son of Rabbi said to Rabbi, 'It might be hidden between the folds'. [On] ripping [the seams] open he saw it.<a id="k160b_44"><sup>44</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, if it were [so],<a id="k160b_45"><sup>45</sup></a>&nbsp; he should have [remarked].' There is neither date nor are there witnesses on this deed!' &mdash; He replied to him: Do you think [that according to R. Huna the witnesses sign] between the folds on the inside? No; [they sign] between the folds on the outside.<a id="k160b_46"><sup>46</sup></a>&nbsp; But [is there no reason] to apprehend that he might forge [the lower section of the folded deed]<a id="k160b_47"><sup>47</sup></a>&nbsp; and enter whatever he wished [after] the witnesses had signed?<a id="k160b_48"><sup>48</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; 'Firm and established', is entered on it.<a id="k160b_49"><sup>49</sup></a>&nbsp; Is [there, however, no reason] to apprehend that he might enter whatever he wished and then write a second time, 'firm and established'? &mdash; [The formula], 'firm and established', is entered [only] once,<a id="k160b_50"><sup>50</sup></a>&nbsp; not twice.<a id="k160b_51"><sup>51</sup></a>&nbsp; Is [there no] apprehension that he might erase the [original] 'firm and established', and add<a id="k160b_52"><sup>52</sup></a>&nbsp; whatever he wished, and then write, 'firm and established'? &mdash; Surely, R. Johanan said: A suspended [word<a id="k160b_53"><sup>53</sup></a>&nbsp; that has been] confirmed<a id="k160b_54"><sup>54</sup></a>&nbsp; is admissible;<a id="k160b_55"><sup>55</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k3a_1:" Joint owners of a courtyard, however, if they do not divide it, do not use it for private purposes."
,k3a_2:" That mehizah means wall."
,k3a_3:" That mehizah means wall."
,k3a_4:" And the Mishnah reproduces this expression."
,k3a_5:" That is to say, one not large enough to allow of four cubits being assigned to each."
,k3a_6:" That a courtyard is not to be divided if each part will not be large enough to be still called a courtyard."
,k3a_7:" <i>Infra</i> 22a."
,k3a_8:" Because overlooking is a substantial damage."
,k3a_9:" The later Mishnah just quoted, seeing that we can learn this rule from the Mishnah here."
,k3a_10:" Lit., 'acquisition': the handing of a small article, usually a piece of cloth, by one of the contracting parties to the other, as a symbol that the object transferred has passed from the ownership of the one to that of the other. v. B.M. 47a."
,k3a_11:" That is to say, that of which ownership is acquired by the <i>kinyan</i> is only a verbal promise (viz. to divide), not any concrete article."
,k3a_12:" E.g., one the north side and one the south, so that something concrete was involved in the transaction."
,k3a_13:" V. Tosaf. s.v. cr"
,k3a_14:" By digging a little or so forth."
,k3a_15:" I Kings VII, 9."
,k3a_16:" A whole brick was three handbreadths thick, but if two half-bricks were used, an extra half-handbreadth would be required for each for the mortar."
,k3a_17:" Required for a wall of gebil as against a wall of gazith."
,k3a_18:" From the fact that kefisin require a handbreadth more than lebenim."
,k3a_19:" Unless otherwise specified in a contract for a wall."
,k3a_20:" Made only of clay or mud."
,k3a_21:" In which small stones are mixed with the clay."
,k3a_22:" Lit., 'the cubit of the partition' (perhaps =[G]): a wall separating the Holy from the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon."
,k3a_23:" I.e., although five handbreadths are required for a height of four cubits, six handbreadths will sustain a wall much higher."
,k3a_24:" Where only a curtain separated the Holy from the Holy of Holies."
,k3a_25:" The Second Temple was 100 cubits high. v. Mid. IV, 6."
,k3a_26:" Hag. II, 9. "
}

txt:
<p>
so that I may keep out of your sight.<a id="k3a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Another version [of the above discussion is as follows]. It was presumed [in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>] that mehizah means 'division', as in the verse, and the congregation's mehezath was etc. Since then the partners agree to make a division, they are compelled [according to the Mishnah] to build a wall. This would show that overlooking is a substantial damage. May I not say, however, that mehizah means a wall, as we have learnt: 'If the mehizah of a vineyard has been broken down, the owner [of an adjoining cornfield] can require the owner of the vineyard to restore it. If it is broken down again, he can again require him to restore it. If [the owner of the vineyard] neglects the matter and does not restore it, he causes his neighbour's produce to become forfeit, and is responsible for his loss.' [This being so],<a id="k3a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; the reason why either can be compelled [to assist in putting up the wall] is because they both agreed; but if either did not agree, he cannot be compelled. From which we infer that overlooking is not a substantial damage. If that is so,<a id="k3a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; instead of THEY SHOULD BUILD THE WALL, the Mishnah should say, they should build it'? &mdash; You say then that mehizah means 'division'. If so, instead of 'who agreed to make a division', the Mishnah should say, 'who agreed to divide'? &mdash; It is usual for men to say, 'Come, let us make a division.'<a id="k3a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But if overlooking is a substantial damage, why does it speak of the partners agreeing? Even if they do not agree, [either should be able to demand a division]? &mdash; To this R. Assi answered in the name of R. Johanan: Our Mishnah is speaking of a courtyard where there is no right of division,<a id="k3a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and where therefore [a division is made only] if both agree.
</p><p>
	The Mishnah then tells us [according to this] that where there is no right of division, they may still divide, if they so agree. We have learnt this already, [in the following passage]: 'When does this rule apply?<a id="k3a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; When both of them do not consent to divide; but if both consent, even when it is smaller than this they divide'?<a id="k3a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If I had only that to go by, I should say that where it is smaller than this they may divide with a mere fence of sticks. Therefore it tells us here that it must be a wall.<a id="k3a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	But could not the Mishnah then state this case and omit the other?<a id="k3a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The other case was stated to introduce the succeeding clause: Scrolls of the Scriptures must not be divided even if both [joint owners] agree.
</p><p>
	How then have you explained the Mishnah? As applying to a courtyard in which there is no right of division. If it is speaking of one in which there is no right of division, even if both owners consent, what does it matter? Either of them can retract? &mdash; R. Assi answered in the name of R. Johanan: We assume that each made a formal contract with the other, by means of a <i>kinyan</i>.<a id="k3a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; But even if they made such a contract what does it matter, seeing that it relates only to a verbal agreement?<a id="k3a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [We assume that] they contracted by a <i>kinyan</i> to take different sides.<a id="k3a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: [And this becomes effective if<a id="k3a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>] for instance one traverses his own part and takes formal possession<a id="k3a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other does likewise.
</p><p>
	IN DISTRICTS WHERE IT IS USUAL TO BUILD etc. GEBIL denotes untrimmed stones; GAZITH, squared stones, as it is written, All these were of costly stones according to the measure of hewn stones [gazith].<a id="k3a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; KEFISIN are half bricks and LEBENIM whole bricks.<a id="k3a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabbah the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: How do we know that gebil means untrimmed stones, and that the extra handbreadth<a id="k3a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; is to allow for the projection of the rough edges? May it not be that gebil is half the thickness of gazith, and this extra handbreadth is to allow for the mortar between the rows, in the same way as we defined kefisin to be half-bricks and lebenim whole bricks, the extra handbreadth being for the mortar between the rows? &mdash; He replied: Granting your analogy [between gebil and kefisin], how do we know that kefisin means half-bricks? From tradition. Similarly we know from tradition [that gebil means untrimmed stones]. According to another version, R. Aha the son of R. Awia said to R. Ashi: How do we know that kefisin means half bricks and the extra handbreadth is for the mortar between the rows? May it not be that kefisin means untrimmed stones and the extra handbreadth is for the projection of the rough edges, in the same way as we define gebil to be untrimmed stones and gazith to be polished stone, the extra handbreadth being for the mortar between the rows? &mdash; He replied: Granting your analogy [between kefisin and gebil], how do we know that gebil means untrimmed stones? From tradition. So we know this also from tradition.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: We learn from this<a id="k3a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; that the space between the layers [in a wall] should be a handbreadth.<a id="k3a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, is the case only if it is filled with mortar,<a id="k3a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; but if with rubble,<a id="k3a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; more space is required. Some say: This is the case only if it is filled with rubble, but if mortar is used, not so much is required.
</p><p>
	[The Mishnah seems] to assume that where squared stones are used, if for every four cubits of height there is a breadth of five handbreadths, the wall will stand, but otherwise not. What then of the Ammah Traksin<a id="k3a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; which was thirty cubits high but only six handbreadths broad, and yet it stood? &mdash; The one extra handbreadth enabled it to stand.<a id="k3a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; Why was there no Ammah Traksin in the Second Temple?<a id="k3a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A thickness of six handbreadths will sustain a wall of thirty cubits but not more.<a id="k3a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; How do we know that the Second Temple Was higher [than the first]? &mdash; Because it is written, Greater shall be the glory of the latter' house than the former.<a id="k3a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; [The word 'greater' was interpreted differently by] Rab and Samuel [or, according to another report, by R. Johanan and R. Eleazar], one referring it to the size and the other
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k3b_1:" The First Temple is supposed to have stood 410 years, the Second 420."
,k3b_2:" For which an extra allowance has to be made."
,k3b_3:" Which shows that measurements less than a handbreadth are specified by the Mishnah. "
,k3b_4:" The beam placed across the entrance to an alley-way to enable articles to be carried in it on Sabbath."
,k3b_5:" 'Er. 13 b. This shows that a lebenah is three handbreadths without the plaster."
,k3b_6:" That the three handbreadths of the Mishnah includes the plaster."
,k3b_7:" So that the congregation will be left without a synagogue. Lit., 'on account of transgression'."
,k3b_8:" During the time when the second synagogue is being built. Lit., 'on account of prayer'."
,k3b_9:" In which case the second reason does not apply."
,k3b_10:" In the summer a more airy building was used to escape the heat."
,k3b_11:" That the building of the new one may be neglected."
,k3b_12:" The redemption of captives was regarded as a mizwah of very great importance, and would take precedence of the building of a synagogue. Hence even in this case the old should not be demolished till the new is ready."
,k3b_13:" For the roof."
,k3b_14:" And therefore they should never pull down the old one."
,k3b_15:" And much less a synagogue."
,k3b_16:" [A suburb of Sura which attained fame as a centre of learning in the days of R. Ashi. v. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babyloniens, 289.]"
,k3b_17:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k3b_18:" Mariamne, the daughter of Alexander, a son of Aristobulus II. According to Josephus, she was put to death by Herod after being married to him several years."
,k3b_19:" A voice from heaven. V. Gloss."
,k3b_20:" [V. D.S. a.l.]"
,k3b_21:" Lit., 'this maiden'."
,k3b_22:" Deut. XVII, 15. "
}

txt:
<p>
to the duration; and both are correct.<a id="k3b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Why did they not [in the Second Temple] build a wall thirty cubits high and use a curtain for the remaining [seventy cubits]? &mdash; Even the thirty cubit wall [of the First Temple] was only sustained by the ceiling and plaster [of the room above it], but without such a ceiling and plaster it could not stand [with a breadth of only six handbreadths]. But why did they not build a wall as high as possible [with a breadth of six handbreadths] and use a curtain for the rest? &mdash; Abaye replied: It was known to them by tradition that the partition should be wholly a wall or wholly a curtain, either wholly a wall as in the First Temple, or wholly a curtain as in the Tabernacle.
</p><p>
	The question was raised: [Do the measurements given in the Mishnah] apply to the material with the [outside] plaster, or to the materials without the plaster?<a id="k3b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is reasonable to assume that the plaster is included, since if the plaster is not included, its measurement should [also] have been specified. We may conclude therefore that the plaster is included. No! I may still say that the measurements given refer to the material without the plaster, and the reason why that of the plaster is not specified is because it is less than a handbreadth. But in the case of bricks, does it not say that one gives a handbreadth and a half and the other likewise?<a id="k3b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There [half-handbreadths are mentioned] because the two halves can be combined [to form a whole one].
</p><p>
	Come and hear [an objection to this]: 'The beam<a id="k3b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; of which they speak should be wide enough to hold an ariah, which is the half of a lebenah of three handbreadths'.<a id="k3b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There it is speaking of large bricks. This is indicated also by the expression 'half a brick of three handbreadths' which implies that there is a smaller variety. Hence it is proven.<a id="k3b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: A synagogue should not be demolished before another has been built to take its place. Some say the reason is lest the matter should be neglected,<a id="k3b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; others to prevent any interruption of religious worship.<a id="k3b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; What practical difference does it make which reason we adopt? &mdash; There is a difference if there is another synagogue.<a id="k3b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Meremar and Mar Zutra pulled down and rebuilt a summer synagogue in winter and a winter synagogue in summer.<a id="k3b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabina asked R. Ashi: Suppose money for a synagogue has been collected and is ready for use, is there still a risk?<a id="k3b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He replied: They may be called upon to redeem captives and use it for that purpose.<a id="k3b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; [Rabina asked further]: Suppose the bricks are already piled up and the lathes trimmed<a id="k3b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and the beams ready, what are we to say? &mdash; He replied: It can happen that money is suddenly required for the redemption of captives, and they may sell the material for that purpose. If they could do that, [he said], they could do the same even if they had already built the synagogue?<a id="k3b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; He answered: People do not sell their dwelling-places.<a id="k3b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	This rule [about pulling down a synagogue] only applies if no cracks have appeared in it, but if cracks have appeared, they may pull down first and build afterwards. A case in point is that of R. Ashi, who, observing cracks in the synagogue of Matha Mehasia,<a id="k3b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; had it pulled down. He then took his bed there and did not remove it until the very gutters [of the new building] had been completed.
</p><p>
	But how could Baba b. Buta have advised Herod to pull down the Temple,<a id="k3b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; seeing that R. Hisda has laid down that a synagogue should not be demolished until a new one has been built to take its place? &mdash; If you like I can say that cracks had appeared in it, or if you like I can say that the rule does not apply to Royalty, since a king does not go back on his word. For so said Samuel: If Royalty says, I will uproot mountains, it will uproot them and not go back on its word.
</p><p>
	Herod was the slave of the Hasmonean house, and had set his eyes on a certain maiden [of that house].<a id="k3b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; One day he heard a <I>Bath Kol</I><a id="k3b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; say, 'Every slave that rebels now will succeed.' So he rose and killed all the members of his master's<a id="k3b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; household, but spared that maiden. When she saw that he wanted to marry her, she went up on to a roof and cried out, 'Whoever comes and says, I am from the Hasmonean house, is a slave, since I<a id="k3b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; alone am left of it, and I am throwing myself down from this roof.' He preserved her body in honey for seven years. Some say that he had intercourse with her, others that he did not. According to those who say that he had intercourse with her, his reason for embalming her was to gratify his desires. According to those who say that he did not have intercourse with her, his reason was that people might say that he had married a king's daughter.
</p><p>
	Who are they, he said, who teach, <I>From the midst of thy brethren thou shalt set up a king over thee</I>,<a id="k3b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; [stressing the word <I>'brethren'</I>]? The Rabbis! He therefore arose and killed all the Rabbis, sparing, however, Baba b. Buta, that he might take counsel of him.
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k4a_1:" Eccl. X, 20."
,k4a_2:" Ibid."
,k4a_3:" Ex. XXII, 27."
,k4a_4:" Lit., 'Since you and I sit (here).'"
,k4a_5:" Eccl. X, 20."
,k4a_6:" Prov. VI, 23."
,k4a_7:" Isa. II, 2. The Hebrew word is [H] (lit. 'and shall flow'), which here is connected with the Aramaic vruvb 'light'."
,k4a_8:" Literal rendering of Num. XV, 24."
,k4a_9:" Ezek. XXIV, 21."
,k4a_10:" Lit., 'book'."
,k4a_11:" [ [H] prob. a transliteration of the Latin <I>rex</I>.]"
,k4a_12:" In the E.V. '<I>tender</I>'"
,k4a_13:" II Sam. III, 39"
,k4a_14:" [H] prob. an Egyptian word meaning 'ruler', interpreted by the Rabbis to mean 'father of the king'. Gen. XLI, 43."
,k4a_15:" Lit., 'it sent forth an edge and drew in an edge'."
,k4a_16:" Dan. IV, 24."
,k4a_17:" Ibid. 25."
,k4a_18:" Ibid. 26. The twelve months' reprieve is regarded as a result of Daniel's advice."
,k4a_19:" Esther, IV, 5."
,k4a_20:" [H] to cut, this being his punishment."
,k4a_21:" [H] denotes 'to determine', 'to decide', as well as 'to cut'."
,k4a_22:" Which appears to be superfluous."
,k4a_23:" I.e., where no definite custom exists."
,k4a_24:" Where there is no damage from 'overlooking', as in an orchard."
,k4a_25:" Thus Abaye takes the words IN A PLACE WHERE IT IS CUSTOMARY TO FENCE with IN A STRETCH OF FIELDS."
,k4a_26:" On Abaye's theory, this should come after IN A STRETCH OF FIELDS, not before it,"
,k4a_27:" Which would equally be a sign that the wall is his."
,k4a_28:" I.e., on his side."
,k4a_29:" Lit., 'say it is mine and his', as having jointly made it originally."
,k4a_30:" How then could R. Huna say that he should make the facing on the inner side? "
}

txt:
<p>
He placed on his head a garland of hedgehog bristles and put out his eyes. One day he came and sat before him and said: See, Sir, what this wicked slave [Herod] does. What do you want me to do to him, replied Baba b. Buta. He said: I want you to curse him. He replied with the verse, <I>Even in thy thoughts thou shouldst not curse a king</I>.<a id="k4a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Herod to him: But this is no king. He replied: Even though he be only a rich man, it is written, <I>And in thy bedchamber do not curse the rich</I>;<a id="k4a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and be he no more than a prince, it is written, <I>A prince among thy people thou shalt not curse</I>.<a id="k4a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Herod to him: This applies only to one who acts as one of 'thy people', but this man does not act as one of thy people. He said: I am afraid of him. But, said Herod, there is no-one who can go and tell him, since we two are quite alone.<a id="k4a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: <I>For a bird of the heaven shall carry the voice and that which hath wings shall tell the matter</I>.<a id="k4a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Herod then said: I am Herod. Had I known that the Rabbis were so circumspect, I should not have killed them. Now tell me what amends I can make. He replied: As you have extinguished the light of the world, [for so the Rabbis are called] as it is written, <I>For the commandment is a light and the Torah a lamp</I>,<a id="k4a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; go now and attend to the light of the world [which is the Temple, of which] it is written, <I>And all the nations become enlightened by it</I>.<a id="k4a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Some report that Baba b. Buta answered him thus: As you have blinded the eye of the world, [for so the Rabbis are called] as it is written, <I>if it be done unwittingly by the eyes of the congregation</I>,<a id="k4a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; go now and attend to the eye of the world, [which is the Temple] as it is written, <I>I will profane my sanctuary, the pride of your power, the delight of your eyes</I>.<a id="k4a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Herod replied: I am afraid of the Government [of Rome]. He said: Send an envoy, and let him take a year on the way and stay in Rome a year and take a year coming back, and in the meantime you can pull down the Temple and rebuild it. He did so, and received the following message [from Rome]: If you have not yet pulled it down, do not do so; if you have pulled it down, do not rebuild it; if you have pulled it down and already rebuilt it, you are one of those bad servants who do first and ask permission afterwards. Though you strut with your sword, your genealogy<a id="k4a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; is here; [we know] you are neither a <I>reka</I><a id="k4a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; nor the son of a reka, but Herod the slave who has made himself a freedman. What is the meaning of reka? &mdash; It means royalty, as it is written, <I>I am this day</I> rak<a id="k4a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>and anointed king</I>.<a id="k4a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Or if you like, I can derive the meaning from this verse, <I>And they cried before him</I>, Abrek.<a id="k4a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It used to be said: He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building. Of what did he build it? Rabbah said: Of yellow and white marble. Some say, of blue, yellow and white marble. Alternate rows [of the stones] projected,<a id="k4a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; so as to leave a place for cement. He originally intended to cover it with gold, but the Rabbis advised him not to, since it was more beautiful as it was, looking like the waves of the sea.
</p><p>
	How came Baba b. Buta to do this [to give advice to Herod], seeing that Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab (or it may be R. Joshuah b. Levi) that Daniel was punished only because he gave advice to Nebuchadnezzar, as it is written, Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and atone thy sins by righteousness and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, if there may be a lengthening of thy tranquility etc.,<a id="k4a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and again, All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar,<a id="k4a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; and again, At the end of twelve months etc.?<a id="k4a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you like I can say that this does not apply to a slave [of an Israelite, such as Herod was.] who is under obligation to keep the commandments [of the Torah], or if you like I can say that an exception had to be made in the case of the Temple which could not have been built without the assistance of Royalty.
</p><p>
	From whence do we learn that Daniel was punished? Shall I say from the verse, And Esther called to Hatach,<a id="k4a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; who, as Rab has told us, was the same as Daniel? This is a sufficient answer if we accept the view of those who say that he was called Hatach because he was cut down [hatach] from his greatness.<a id="k4a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; But on the view of those who say that he was called Hatach because all matters of state were decided<a id="k4a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; [hatach] according to his counsel, what answer can we give? &mdash; That he was thrown Into the den of lions.
</p><p>
	ALL ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM OF THE DISTRICT. What further implication is conveyed by the word 'ALL'?<a id="k4a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That we include places where fences are made of palm branches and branches of bay trees.
</p><p>
	THEREFORE IF THE WALL FALLS, THE PLACE AND THE STONES BELONG TO BOTH. Surely this is self-evident? &mdash; It required to be stated in view of the case where the wall has fallen entirely into the property of one of them, or where one of them has cleared all the stones Into his own part. You might think that in that case the onus probandi falls on the other as claimant. Now we know [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	SIMILARLY IN AN ORCHARD, IN A PLACE WHERE IT IS CUSTOMARY TO FENCE OFF. The text itself seems here to contain a contradiction. You first say, SIMILARLY IN AN ORCHARD, IN A PLACE WHERE IT IS CUSTOMARY TO FENCE OFF, EITHER CAN BE COMPELLED, from which I infer that in an ordinary<a id="k4a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [orchard] he cannot be compelled to fence off. Now see the next clause: BUT IN A STRETCH OF FIELDS, IN A PLACE WHERE IT IS USUAL NOT TO FENCE OFF, NEITHER CAN BE COMPELLED, from which I infer that in an ordinary<a id="k4a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; [stretch] he can be compelled. Now if you say that he cannot be compelled in an ordinary orchard, do we require to be told that he cannot be compelled in an ordinary stretch of fields?<a id="k4a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: We must read the Mishnah thus: 'Similarly with an ordinary orchard:<a id="k4a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and also where it is customary to put fences in a stretch of fields, he can be compelled.'<a id="k4a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba to him: If that is the meaning, what are we to make of the word BUT?<a id="k4a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said Raba; we must read the Mishnah thus: 'Similarly with an ordinary orchard, which is regarded as a place where it is customary to make a fence, and he can be compelled: but an ordinary stretch of cornfields is regarded as a place where it is not customary to make a fence, and he is not compelled.'
</p><p>
	IF, HOWEVER, ONE DESIRES TO MAKE A FENCE, HE MUST WITHDRAW A LITTLE AND BUILD ON HIS OWN GROUND, MAKING A FACING. How does he make a facing? &mdash; R. Huna says: He bends the edge over towards the outer side. Why should he not make it on the inner side?<a id="k4a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because then his neighbour may make another one on the outer side<a id="k4a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; and say that the wall belongs to both of them.<a id="k4a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; If he can do that, then even if the ledge is on the outer side he can cut it off and say that the wall belongs to both? &mdash; Breaking off would be noticeable.
</p><p>
	According to another version, R. Huna said: He bends the edge over on the inner side. Why should he not bend it over on the outer side? &mdash; His neighbour may break it off and say that the wall belongs to both of them.<a id="k4a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; If he can do that, he can join one on and claim that the wall belongs to both? &mdash; Such a joining on would be noticeable. But the Mishnah says, ON THE OUTER SIDE?<a id="k4a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This is certainly a difficulty.
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said:
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k4b_1:" V. n. 4."
,k4b_2:" [Another rendering, 'The staves supporting the hedge' (R. Han).]"
,k4b_3:" V. p. 14, n, 4."
,k4b_4:" That is to say, there is always the possibility of fraud unless there is evidence in writing duly witnessed as to how the partition was made."
,k4b_5:" [Identified with Farausag. a district near Bagdad. V. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., 269."
,k4b_6:" That if one builds the fence on his own ground he should make a mark."
,k4b_7:" That the one who wants to build should withdraw into his own ground."
,k4b_8:" There is no law that a fence should be built in a stretch of cornfields."
,k4b_9:" Whether because there is no custom that fields should be fenced or because the fencing is of little advantage so long as the fourth side is open."
,k4b_10:" The question which of the two is meant is discussed in the Gemara."
,k4b_11:" Lit., 'rose up and fenced'."
,k4b_12:" I.e., his share in the cost of the whole."
,k4b_13:" Which will vary according to the materials used by the encloser."
,k4b_14:" Because the other can say that this is all that he requires."
,k4b_15:" That is to say, can even the Rabbis fix his contribution at anything less than this?"
,k4b_16:" During the time that the corn is ripe."
,k4b_17:" This would be less than the cost of a cheap fence, and the Rabbis might say that since this is all he requires, this is all that the fence is worth to him, and he need not contribute more than this."
,k4b_18:" That is to lay, we infer only this from the language of the Mishnah, and not, as above, that he has to contribute to the cost of the whole."
,k4b_19:" Proportionately to the actual cost, according to one authority, and to the cost of a cheap fence according to the other."
,k4b_20:" It is not clear on what grounds this opinion is ascribed to the first Tanna, as there is no hint of it in the Mishnah. Rashi does not seem to have had the whole of this clause in his text; v. D. S. a.l."
,k4b_21:" Apparently the cost of the whole is meant."
,k4b_22:" Because he can say that he does not want any fencing. "
}

txt:
<p>
[The man who makes the wall] should smear it [with lime] on the outer side to the extent of a cubit. Why not on the inner side? &mdash; His neighbour will do the same on the outer side and claim that the wall is joint property. If he can do that, he can also scrape off the mark [on the outer side] and claim a share in the wall?<a id="k4b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Scraping is noticeable.
</p><p>
	[Suppose the partition is made of] palm branches, [how is he to make a mark]? &mdash; R. Nahman said: He should direct the points of the branches<a id="k4b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; outwards. Why not inwards? &mdash; Because then his neighbour may also turn points outwards and say that the fence is joint property.<a id="k4b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; If he can do that, he can also cut off the points [if they are outside] and throw them away? &mdash; [The other should therefore] smear clay over them. But even so the neighbour can come and scrape it away? &mdash; Scraping would be noticed. Abaye said [that for a partition made of] palm branches there is no security save by a written deed.<a id="k4b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF, HOWEVER, THEY BOTH CONCUR. Raba of Parazika<a id="k4b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; said to R. Ashi: Let neither of them make a mark? &mdash; The rule is required for the case where one made a mark first, so that if the other does not do likewise, the first may claim [the whole wall] as his own. Is the Tanna then teaching us how to guard against rogues? &mdash; And is not the previous regulation also<a id="k4b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; a precaution against rogues? Raba replied: This is right and proper in the former clause:<a id="k4b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; the Tanna first states the law and then teaches how it should be safeguarded. But in the latter clause what law has he laid down that he should teach us how to safeguard it?<a id="k4b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina said: We are here dealing with a partition made of palm branches, and the object of the Mishnah is to exclude the view of Abaye, that for a fence made of palm branches there is no security save through a written deed. It therefore tells us that the making of a facing is sufficient.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN HAS FIELDS SURROUNDING THOSE OF ANOTHER ON THREE SIDES AND FENCES THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD, THE OTHER IS NOT BOUND [TO SHARE IN THE COST].<a id="k4b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. JOSE SAID: IF HE<a id="k4b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO FENCE<a id="k4b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; THE FOURTH, THE WHOLE<a id="k4b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; COST DEVOLVES UPON HIM.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> follows R. Jose who said: IF HE TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO FENCE THE FOURTH, THE WHOLE COST DEVOLVES UPON HIM; and it makes no difference whether it is the encloser or the enclosed who does so.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: R. Huna said, [The contribution to the cost of] the whole must be proportionate to the actual cost of erecting the fence;<a id="k4b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Hiyya b. Rab said, It must be proportionate to the cost of a cheap fence of sticks.<a id="k4b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learnt: IF A MAN HAS FIELDS SURROUNDING THOSE OF ANOTHER ON THREE SIDES AND FENCES THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD SIDES, THE OTHER IS NOT COMPELLED [TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST]; which would imply that if the other fences the fourth side also, he must contribute [to the cost of the whole]. Now see the next clause: R. JOSE SAYS, IF HE TAKES IT UPON HIMSELF TO FENCE THE FOURTH, THE COST OF THE WHOLE DEVOLVES UPON HIM. This accords very well with the opinion of R. Huna who said [that he contributes to the cost of] the whole in proportion to the outlay on the fence; there is a genuine difference of opinion between the first Tanna and R. Jose, the former holding that the contribution has to be proportionate to the cost of a cheap fence of sticks, but not to the actual outlay, and R. Jose that it has [in all cases] to be proportional to the actual outlay. But if we accept the view of Hiyya b. Rab who said that it need only be proportionate to the cost of a cheap fence of sticks, what difference is there between the first Tanna and R. Jose? If he is not to give him even the cost of a cheap fence, what else can he give?<a id="k4b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you like I can say that they differ as regards the hire of a watchman,<a id="k4b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; the first Tanna holding that he must pay the cost of a watchman<a id="k4b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but not of a cheap fence, and R. Jose holding that he must pay the cost of a cheap fence. If you like, again, I can say that they differ as to the first, second and third sides, the first Tanna holding that he has to contribute only to the cost of fencing the fourth side, but not the first, second and third,<a id="k4b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Jose holding that he has to contribute to the cost of the first, second and third sides also.<a id="k4b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; If you like, again, I can say that they differ as to whether the fence in question must be built by the owner of the surrounding fields or of the enclosed field, [if the latter is to contribute to the cost of the whole]. The first Tanna holds that the reason [why the owner of the enclosed field has to contribute] is because the took the initiative [in building the fourth fence] and that is why the cost of the whole devolves on him, but if the owner of the surrounding fields took the initiative, the other has only to pay him his contribution to the fourth fence.<a id="k4b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Jose on the other hand holds that it makes no difference whether the owner of the enclosed or of the surrounding fields took the initiative In building the fourth fence, in either case the former has to pay the latter his share of the whole. According to another version [of this last clause], they differ as to [whether the fourth fence has to be built by] the owner of the enclosed or the surrounding fields [in order to make the former liable for contributing to its cost]. The first Tanna holds that even if the owner of the surrounding fields makes the fourth fence, the other has to contribute to the cost,<a id="k4b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas R. Jose holds that if the owner of the enclosed field takes it upon himself to build the fourth fence, then he has to contribute to the cost [of the whole] because he makes it clear that he approves of it, but if the owner of the surrounding fields builds it, the other does not pay him anything.<a id="k4b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k5a_1:" According to the ruling of R. Jose as interpreted by R. Huna."
,k5a_2:" According to the same ruling as interpreted by Hiyya b. Rab."
,k5a_3:" According to one version of the opinion of the Rabbis."
,k5a_4:" By the fact that you do not want people to enter your field."
,k5a_5:" [Adopting the reading of the BaH, v. D.S.]"
,k5a_6:" Lit., 'appease him with what he is willing to be appeased with,' i.e., the hire of a watchman."
,k5a_7:" Viz., to contribute half of his actual outlay, this being the <i>halachah</i>."
,k5a_8:" As owner of the adjoining field."
,k5a_9:" Apparently R. Safra meant that by having two fields instead of one, Ronya, who was a poor man, would save expense, and therefore Rabina ought to let him keep it. But the exact application of the saying here is obscure. v. Rashi and Tosaf."
,k5a_10:" This being the minimum to prevent overlooking."
,k5a_11:" In case he is sued by the other after the wall is built."
,k5a_12:" Because, as most people know the rule about contributing, we presume that if the other had not paid as soon as the wall was finished, he would have sued him at once."
,k5a_13:" To the rebuilding higher than four cubits."
,k5a_14:" With the intention of roofing over the intervening space."
,k5a_15:" Because he makes it clear retrospectively that he is well satisfied to have the wall at its present height."
,k5a_16:" Because this rule is not so well known, and the builder of the first wall may have learnt only some time after that he was able to recover his outlay. "
}

txt:
<p>
	[One] Ronya had a field which was enclosed on all four sides by fields of Rabina. The latter [fenced them and] said to him: pay me [towards] what I have spent for fencing.<a id="k5a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; He refused to do so. Then pay [towards] the cost of a cheap fence of sticks.<a id="k5a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; He again refused. Then pay me the hire of a watchman.<a id="k5a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; He still refused. One day Rabina saw Ronya gathering dates, and he said to his metayer: Go and snatch a cluster of dates from him. He went to take them, but Ronya shouted at him, whereupon Rabina said: You show by this<a id="k5a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; that you are glad of the fence. If it is only goats [you are afraid of], does not your field need guarding? He replied: A goat can be driven off with a shout.<a id="k5a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; But, he said, don't you require a man to shout at it? He appealed to Raba, who said to him: Go and accept his last offer,<a id="k5a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and if not, I will give judgment against you according to R. Huna's interpretation of the ruling of R. Jose.<a id="k5a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Ronya bought a field adjoining a field of Rabina. The latter thought he was entitled to eject him in virtue of his right of preemption.<a id="k5a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Safra the son of R. Yeba to Rabina: You know the saying, The hide costs four zuzim, and four are for the tanner.<a id="k5a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF THE PARTY WALL OF A COURTYARD FALLS IN, EACH OF THE NEIGHBOURS CAN BE COMPELLED BY THE OTHER TO [CONTRIBUTE TO THE COST OF] REBUILDING IT TO A HEIGHT OF FOUR CUBITS.<a id="k5a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; [EACH OF THEM] IS ALWAYS PRESUMED TO HAVE GIVEN HIS SHARE<a id="k5a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; UNTIL THE OTHER BRINGS A PROOF THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN.<a id="k5a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR REBUILDING HIGHER THAN FOUR CUBITS NEITHER CAN BE COMPELLED [TO CONTRIBUTE]. IF, HOWEVER, [THE ONE WHO HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED]<a id="k5a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; BUILDS ANOTHER WALL CLOSE TO IT,<a id="k5a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT YET PUT A ROOFING OVER THE SPACE BETWEEN, THE [PRO RATA] COST OF THE WHOLE DEVOLVES UPON HIM,<a id="k5a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; AND HE IS PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE GIVEN UNTIL HE ADDUCES PROOF THAT HE HAS GIVEN.<a id="k5a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Resh Lakish has laid down: If a lender stipulates a date for the repayment of a loan, and the borrower pleads [when the date of payment arrives] that he paid the debt before it fell due, his word is not accepted. Let him only pay when it does fall due! Abaye and Raba, however, both concur in saying that it is not unusual for a man to pay a debt before it falls due; sometimes he happens to have money, and he says to himself, I will go and pay him,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k5b_1:" Lit., 'so that he may not trouble me'."
,k5b_2:" Viz., when the wall reached a height of four cubits."
,k5b_3:" According to the rule that in money claims the word of the defendant is taken against that of the claimant."
,k5b_4:" Because each is equally under obligation to build the wall."
,k5b_5:" l.e., as soon as the wall was finished."
,k5b_6:" As explained above, p. 19, n. 7. And therefore we do not believe him even if he says that he paid when payment fell due."
,k5b_7:" That is to say, if the debtor dies, the payment may be recovered from his orphans in the same way as from himself, i.e., without taking an oath."
,k5b_8:" E.g., the presumption that a man does not pay before the time."
,k5b_9:" And we therefore accept his word. "
}

txt:
<p>
so as to be quit of him.<a id="k5b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We have learnt: EACH IS PRESUMED TO HAVE GIVEN HIS SHARE UNTIL THE OTHER BRINGS PROOF THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that he says to the claimant: I paid when the payment was due?<a id="k5b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Then it is self-evident that he is presumed to have given.<a id="k5b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; We must suppose then that he pleads: I paid you before the payment was due. This would show, [would it not], that it is not unusual for a man to pay a debt before it is due? &mdash; Here the case is different, because with every layer [of the wall that is finished some] payment becomes due.<a id="k5b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear [this]: HE IS PRESUMED NOT TO HAVE GIVEN UNTIL HE ADDUCES PRO OF THAT HE HAS GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to assume that he says to him: I paid you when payment became due?<a id="k5b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; If so, why should we not take his word? We must suppose therefore that he says, I paid you before payment became due; which would show, [would it not], that it is not unusual for a man to pay before the time? &mdash; The case here is different, since he may say to himself, How do I know that the Rabbis will make me pay?<a id="k5b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua followed in practice the ruling of Abaye and Raba, whereas Mar son of R. Ashi followed Resh Lakish &mdash; The law is as stated by Resh Lakish, and [the ruling applies] even to orphans,<a id="k5b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; in spite of what has been laid down by a Master, that one who seeks to recover a debt from the property of orphans need not be paid unless he first takes an oath, because the presumption is that a man does not pay a debt before it falls due. The question was raised: If the creditor claims payment some time after the debt falls due, and the debtor pleads, I paid it before it fell due, how do we decide? Do we say that even where there is a presumption [against him]<a id="k5b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; we plead [on his behalf], 'what motive has he to tell a lie',<a id="k5b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k6a_1:" When the wall was finished."
,k6a_2:" And therefore he does not really plead that he paid before the time."
,k6a_3:" V. p. 19 n. 7."
,k6a_4:" Lit., 'Nothing of yours is in my hand'."
,k6a_5:" The presumption that a debtor does not pay before the time."
,k6a_6:" Lit., 'The thing never happened'."
,k6a_7:" I.e., if it is built up to half the same length or height."
,k6a_8:" And he has to contribute to the cost of the whole, the reason being that in all probability he will subsequently finish it and make a roofing."
,k6a_9:" And he only pays proportionately to the amount he has built."
,k6a_10:" Apparently what is referred to is a wall which the other neighbour (the one who did not raise the party wall) builds out from his own house parallel to the party wall. As it is evident that he has no intention of extending this, he contributes to the increased height of the party wall only in proportion to its height or length. Another explanation is he joins two walls already existing. V. <I>Aruch</I> and Levy S.v. [H]"
,k6a_11:" A thick beam laid on top of the wall to sustain further building."
,k6a_12:" Cavities made of lathes alongside of the wall in which upright beams may afterwards be placed. In both these cases he shows his intention of building higher, and therefore must contribute to the cost of the whole."
,k6a_13:" Which would be suitable for resting cross beams in, if another wall is built opposite."
,k6a_14:" If Reuben raises the party wall higher than four cubits, at the same time putting cavities in it, and Simeon subsequently builds a wall parallel to it, Simeon cannot point to the cavities as proof that he has paid his share for the party wall, because Reuben can say that he put them in of his own accord as a precaution."
,k6a_15:" That is to say, if the other has allowed him to do so without protesting, and he can also plead (but without adducing proof) that he acquired the right by gift or purchase."
,k6a_16:" V. preceding note."
,k6a_17:" Because if the water flows down in this way it is more useful to the owner of the courtyard."
,k6a_18:" From which the water would drip so continuously as to become a nuisance. "
}

txt:
<p>
or is the rule that where there is such a presumption we do not advance this plea? &mdash; Come and hear: EACH IS PRESUMED TO HAVE GIVEN HIS SHARE UNTIL THE OTHER BRINGS PROOF THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that the claim was made some time after the payment fell due, and the defendant pleads, I paid you when it fell due?<a id="k6a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Then this is self-evident. We must suppose then that he pleads, I paid you before the time of payment; from which we would infer that even where there is a presumption against the defendant, we plead [on his behalf], What motive has he to tell a lie? The case here is different, because with every layer [that is finished some] payment becomes due.<a id="k6a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: FOR REBUILDING HIGHER THAN FOUR CUBITS NEITHER CAN BE COMPELLED [TO CONTRIBUTE]. IF, HOWEVER, HE BUILDS ANOTHER WALL CLOSE TO IT&nbsp;&hellip; UNTIL HE ADDUCES PROOF THAT HE HAS GIVEN. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that the claim is made some time after and the defendant pleads, I paid you when the money fell due? If so, why [should we] not [believe him]? We must suppose therefore that he pleads, I paid you before the time of payment, [and yet he has to contribute]; which would show [would it not] that where there is a presumption [against him], we do not plead [on his behalf], What motive has he to tell a lie? &mdash; Here the case is different, because he can say to himself, How do I know that the Rabbis will compel me to pay?<a id="k6a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: Come and hear [this]: [If a man says to another], You owe me a <i>maneh</i>, and the other says, That is so, and if on the next day when the lender says, Give it to me, the borrower pleads, I have given it to you, he is quit, but if he says, I do not owe you anything,<a id="k6a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; he is liable to pay. Now the expression, 'I have given it to you' is equivalent, is it not, to 'I paid when it fell due', and the expression, 'I do not owe you anything'<a id="k6a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to 'I paid you before it fell due'; and we are told that in the latter case he is liable; which would show that where there is a presumption [against him]<a id="k6a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; we do not plead [on his behalf], what motive has he to tell a lie? &mdash; Not so: the expression 'I do not owe you anything' means 'I never borrowed from you,'<a id="k6a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [and therefore he is liable] because a Master has laid down that to say 'I have not borrowed' is equivalent to saying 'I have not paid'.
</p><p>
	IF HE PUTS UP ANOTHER WALL CLOSE TO IT, THE COST OF THE WHOLE DEVOLVES ON HIM. R. Huna said: If the second wall matches half [the first wall],<a id="k6a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; it is the same as if it matched the whole.<a id="k6a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman, however, said that where it matches it matches, and where it does not it does not.<a id="k6a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna, however, admits [that R. Nahman's ruling applies] to a projection joined on to a house;<a id="k6a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Nahman admits [that R. Huna's ruling applies] to a sustaining beam<a id="k6a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; or fittings for fixing planks.<a id="k6a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: [If in the part of the wall above four cubits] there are cavities,<a id="k6a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; this does not create a presumption that [the one who built it was assisted by the other], even if he made the wooden lining in the cavities; for he can plead [when claiming part payment for it from the other]: The reason why I put them In was to prevent my wall becoming damaged, should you persuade me [to let you put cross beams in].<a id="k6a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: If a man has acquired a prescriptive right<a id="k6a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; to rest small beams [upon his neighbour's wall], that does not give him the right to [rest] large beams upon it, but if he has acquired the right to [rest] large beams, that does give him the right to [rest] small beams. R. Joseph, however, said that if he has acquired the right to [rest] small beams, he also has the right to [rest] large beams. According to another version, R. Nahman said that if he has acquired the right for small beams he has the right for large beams, and if he has acquired the right for large beams he has the right for small beams.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said: If a man has a prescriptive right<a id="k6a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; to let water drip [from his roof into his neighbour's courtyard], he also has the right to [carry it off there by means of] a gutter-pipe;<a id="k6a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he has acquired the prescriptive right to [carry it off by means of] a gutter-pipe, he has not also the right to let it drip [from the roof]. R. Joseph, however, said that if he has acquired the right to [carry it off by means of] a gutter-pipe, he has also the right to let it drip [from the roof]. According to another version, R. Nahman said that if he has acquired the prescriptive right to carry it off by a gutter-pipe, he has the right to let it drip [from the roof], but he has not the right to [let it drip from] a cone-shaped roof of reeds;<a id="k6a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas R. Joseph says that he has that right also. In a case which came before him, R. Joseph decided according to his own view.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: If a man lets an apartment to another
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k6b_1:" With a single long wall bordering a number of rooms which are let off separately."
,k6b_2:" Used for resting articles on or hanging them out."
,k6b_3:" Used for placing articles in,"
,k6b_4:" If the room is on the top storey."
,k6b_5:" An ornamental garden at the main entrance of the residence."
,k6b_6:" V. p. 22 n. 9."
,k6b_7:" I.e., for the Feast of Tabernacles."
,k6b_8:" Because he does not require it again for the same purpose till the next Feast of Tabernacles, and therefore if the owner of the house allows him to keep it there beyond the seven days, he in a way recognises his right to keep it there permanently."
,k6b_9:" E.g., if one builds on the north side, the other should build on the south."
,k6b_10:" To avoid the possibility of 'overlooking'."
,k6b_11:" And the steps which you take to protect yourself against them will suffice to protect you against me."
,k6b_12:" Lit., 'take the expense.' [Heb. uzinka, a Persian word meaning 'cost', v. Krauss, TA. I, 20.]"
,k6b_13:" On the side of a hill."
,k6b_14:" Lit., 'for his being caught there like a thief.'"
,k6b_15:" E.g., that something of his fell on to the other's roof and he stepped over to get it."
,k6b_16:" And he has not to contribute to the cost of the wall until it reaches the level of his courtyard."
,k6b_17:" I.e., by contributing to the cost. "
}

txt:
<p>
in a large residence,<a id="k6b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the latter is at liberty to use the projecting beams<a id="k6b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the cavities in the walls<a id="k6b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; up to a distance of four cubits [from his room], and also the thickness of the wall,<a id="k6b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; if this is the local custom, but not [the part of the wall facing] the front garden.<a id="k6b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman, however, speaking for himself said that he may use even the side facing the front garden, but not the yard at the back of the house. Raba, however, said that he may use the yard at the back also.
</p><p>
	Rabina said: [If a man is allowed by his neighbour to support] the beam of his hut [on his wall] for thirty days, this does not constitute prescriptive right,<a id="k6b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but after thirty days it does constitute prescriptive right. If the hut, however, is for religious purposes,<a id="k6b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [should no objection be raised] within seven days, this does not constitute prescriptive right, but [if objection is raised only] after seven days, it does.<a id="k6b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, he attaches it with clay [and still the neighbour does not object], he acquires prescriptive right immediately.
</p><p>
	Abaye said: If there are two houses on opposite sides of a public thoroughfare, the owner of the one should make a parapet for half his roof, and the other a parapet for half his roof, in such a way that the parapets do not face one another,<a id="k6b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; though each should extend [his parapet a little beyond the middle].<a id="k6b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Why [does Abaye] state [this rule in connection with] a public thoroughfare, [seeing that] it could apply equally to private ground? It was more necessary to state it in connection with a public thoroughfare. For you might think that in this case one might [refuse to build], Saying to the other: When all is said and done you have to guard your privacy against the public;<a id="k6b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore we are told here that this is not so, since the other can retort: The public can only see me by day but not by night, whereas you can see me both by day and night; or again, the public can see me when I am standing but not when I am sitting, but you can see me whether I am standing or sitting; the public can see me when they look directly at me, but not otherwise, but you see me even without looking.
</p><p>
	The Master has just said: 'The one should make a parapet for half his roof and the other should make a parapet for half his roof, In such a way that the parapets do not face one another, though each should extend [his parapet a little beyond the middle].' Surely this rule is obvious? &mdash; We require it for the case where one of the owners builds a parapet first [without consulting the other]. You might think that in that case the other is' entitled to say to him: Complete the parapet and I will reimburse you.<a id="k6b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; We, are therefore told [that he cannot insist upon this], since the other can say to him: Why don't you want to build? Because it might weaken your wall. I too [don't want] my wall to be weakened.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If a man's roof adjoins another man's courtyard,<a id="k6b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; he must make a parapet four cubits high, but between one roof and another this is not necessary. To this R. Nahman added in his own name that a wall of four cubits is not required, but a partition of ten handbreadths is required. For what purpose [is such a partition required]? If to prevent 'overlooking' we require four cubits? If for the purpose of convicting his neighbour of felonious entry,<a id="k6b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; a mere fence of sticks would suffice? If to prevent kids and lambs from jumping over, a partition too high for them to jump over at a headlong run would suffice? &mdash; The actual reason is that he may be able to convict his neighbour of felonious entry. If there is only a fence of sticks, the latter can find an excuse,<a id="k6b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; but if there is a partition of ten handbreadths he can find no excuse.
</p><p>
	An objection was brought [against this ruling of R. Nahman] from the following: If the other's courtyard is higher than his roof, there is no need for it. Does not this mean that there is no need for a partition at all? &mdash; No; it means that there is no need for a wall of four cubits, but a partition of ten handbreadths is required.
</p><p>
	It has been stated: If two courtyards adjoin and one is higher than the other, R. Huna says that the owner of the lower one has to build [the party wall] up from his level, and the owner of the higher one starts building from his level.<a id="k6b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Ulla and R. Hisda, however, say that the owner of the higher one has to assist<a id="k6b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the owner of the lower in building from his level. It has been taught in agreement with R. Hisda: If there are two adjoining courtyards of which one is higher than the other, the owner of the higher one must not say to the other, I will start building [the party wall] from my level, but he must assist the other to build from his level.<a id="k6b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, his courtyard is higher than his neighbour's roof, he has no liability. 
</p><p>
	Two men were living [in the same house], one in the upper room and one in the lower. The lower, room began to sink into the ground, so the owner of the lower room said to the one above: 'Let us rebuild the house.' The other replied: 'l am quite comfortable.'
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k10a_1:" Life also occurs in connection with wisdom, Prov. VIII, 35."
,k10a_2:" I.e., money wherewith to do charity."
,k10a_3:" Prov. III, 3 5. The wise are honoured for their eloquent discourses."
,k10a_4:" Tineius Rufus, Roman Governor of Judea."
,k10a_5:" Lev. XXV, 55."
,k10a_6:" Deut. XIV, 1."
,k10a_7:" Apparently this is a reference to the tax-collectors, v.<i>supra,</i> p. 41, n. 9."
,k10a_8:" Lit., 'food'."
,k10a_9:" As the day of Judgment, when the fate of all creatures is decided for the following year."
,k10a_10:" I.e., his losses will take the form of charity."
,k10a_11:" The expression 'poor that are outcast' seems here also to be applied to the tax-gatherers."
,k10a_12:" So that we could have given the whole in charity."
,k10a_13:" I.e., he himself."
,k10a_14:" These were executed by stoning, to which death by a fall was akin; v. Sanh. 45a."
,k10a_15:" [A town near Apamea on the Tigris; v. Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>. 197.]"
,k10a_16:" Deut. XV, 9' The 'base thought' is not to lend to the poor before the Sabbatical year of release."
,k10a_17:" Ibid. XIII, 14. The lesson is based on the occurrence of the word 'base' (Heb. <i>belial</i>) in both contexts."
,k10a_18:" Jer. XVI, 5. The 'peace' consists in the charity and lovingkindness which they used to do. [On the difference between charity '<i>zedakah</i>' and lovingkindness, 'gemiluth hasadim,' v. Tosef. <i>Pe'ah</i> IV.]"
,k10a_19:" Isa. LVI, 1."
,k10a_20:" Heb. <i>ruah</i>, which also means 'breath'."
,k10a_21:" Prov. X, 2."
,k10a_22:" Ps. XVII, 15."
,k10a_23:" I.e., 'When I am in righteousness through giving charity I shall behold thy face in prayer.'"
,k10a_24:" Lit., 'the disciples of the wise.'"
,k10a_25:" Prov. XIX, 17."
,k10a_26:" Ibid. XXII, 7."
,k10a_27:" Ibid. XI, 4."
,k10a_28:" Ibid. X, 2."
,k10a_29:" Zeph. I, 15. "
}

txt:
<p>
He shall find life;<a id="k10a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'wealthy' as it is written, [He shall find] righteousness;<a id="k10a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; 'versed in the Aggadah' as it is written, And [he shall find] honour: and it is written elsewhere, The wise shall inherit honour.<a id="k10a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Meir used to say: The critic [of Judaism] may bring against you the argument, 'If your God loves the poor, why does he not support them?' If so, answer him, 'So that through them we may be saved from the punishment of Gehinnom.' This question was actually put by Turnus Rufus<a id="k10a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to R. Akiba: 'If your God loves the poor, why does He not support them?' He replied, 'So that we may be saved through them from the punishment of Gehinnom.' 'On the contrary,' said the other, 'it is this which condemns you to Gehinnom. I will illustrate by a parable. Suppose an earthly king was angry with his servant and put him in prison and ordered that he should be given no food or drink, and a man went and gave him food and drink. If the king heard, would he not be angry with him? And you are called "servants", as it is written, 'For unto me the children of Israel are servants.'<a id="k10a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Akiba answered him: 'I will illustrate by another parable. Suppose an earthly king was angry with his son, and put him in prison and ordered that no food or drink should be given to him, and someone went and gave him food and drink. If the king heard of it, would he not send him a present? And we are called "sons", as it is written, 'Sons are ye to the Lord your God.'<a id="k10a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to him: 'You are called both sons and servants. When you carry out the desires of the Omnipresent you are called "sons", and when you do not carry out the desires of the Omnipresent, you are called "servants". At the present time you are not carrying out the desires of the Omnipresent. R. Akiba replied: 'The Scripture says, Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry and bring the poor that are cast out to thy house. When "dost thou bring the poor who are cast out<a id="k10a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; to thy house"? Now; and it says [at the same time], Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry?'
</p><p>
	R. Judah son of R. Shalom preached as follows: In the same way as a man's earnings<a id="k10a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; are determined for him from New Year,<a id="k10a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; so his losses are determined for him from New Year. If he finds merit [in the sight of Heaven], then, 'deal out thy bread to the poor';<a id="k10a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; but if not, then, he will 'bring the poor that are outcast to his house.'<a id="k10a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; A case in point is that of the nephews of Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai. He saw in a dream that they were to lose seven hundred dinars in that year. He accordingly forced them to give him money for charity until only seventeen dinars were left [of the seven hundred]. On the eve of the Day of Atonement the Government sent and seized them. R. Johanan b. Zakkai said to them, 'Do not fear [that you will lose any more]; you had seventeen dinars and these they have taken.' They said to him, 'How did you know that this was going to happen?' He replied, 'I saw it in a dream.' 'Then why did you not tell us?'<a id="k10a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; they asked. 'Because,' he said, 'I wanted you to perform the religious precept [of giving charity] quite disinterestedly.'
</p><p>
	As R. Papa was climbing a ladder, his foot slipped and he narrowly escaped falling. Had that happened, he said, mine enemy<a id="k10a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; had been punished like Sabbath breakers and idolaters.<a id="k10a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Hiyya b. Rab from Difti<a id="k10a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; said to him: Perhaps a beggar appealed to you and you did not assist him; for so it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korhah says, Whoever turns away his eyes from [one who appeals for] charity is considered as if he were serving idols. It is written In one place, <I>Beware that there be not a base thought in thine heart</I>,<a id="k10a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and in another place, <I>Certain base fellows are gone out</I>.<a id="k10a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as in the second case the sin is that of idolatry, so in the first case the sin is equivalent to that of idolatry.
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Eliezer son of R. Jose said: All the charity and deeds of kindness which Israel perform in this world [help to promote] peace and good understanding between them and their Father in heaven, as it says, <I>Thus saith the Lord, Enter not into the house of mourning, neither go to lament, neither bemoan them, for I have taken away my peace from this people&nbsp;&hellip; even lovingkindness and tender mercies</I>, [where] 'lovingkindness' refers to acts of kindness, and 'tender mercies' to charity.<a id="k10a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Judah says: Great is charity, in that it brings the redemption nearer, as it says, Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>], for my salvation is near to come and my righteousness to be revealed.<a id="k10a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; He also used to say: Ten strong things have been created in the world. The rock is hard, but the iron cleaves it. The iron is hard, but the fire softens it. The fire is hard, but the water quenches it. The water is strong, but the clouds bear it. The clouds are strong, but the wind<a id="k10a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; scatters them. The wind is strong, but the body bears it. The body is strong, but fright crushes it. Fright is strong, but wine banishes it. Wine is strong, but sleep works it off. Death is stronger than all, and charity saves from death, as it is written, Righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>] delivereth from death.<a id="k10a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Dosthai son of R. Jannai preached [as follows]: Observe that the ways of God are not like the ways of flesh and blood. How does flesh and blood act? If a man brings a present to a king, it may be accepted or it may not be accepted; and even if it is accepted, it is still doubtful whether he will be admitted to the presence of the king or not. Not so God. If a man gives but a farthing to a beggar, he is deemed worthy to receive the Divine Presence, as It is written, I shall behold thy face in righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>], I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness.<a id="k10a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eleazar used to give a coin to a poor man and straightway say a prayer, because, he said, it is written, I in righteousness shall behold thy face.<a id="k10a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of the words, I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness? R. Nahman b. Isaac said: This refers to the students of the Torah<a id="k10a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; who banish sleep from their eyes in this world, and whom the Holy One, blessed be He, feasts with the resplendence of the Divine presence in the future world.
</p><p>
	R Johanan said: What is the meaning of the verse, He that hath pity on the poor lendeth unto the Lord.<a id="k10a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Were it not written in the Scripture, one would not dare to say it: as it were, the borrower is a servant to the lender.<a id="k10a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Hiyya b. Abin said: R. Johanan pointed out that it is written, Riches profit not in the day of wrath, but righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>] delivereth from death,<a id="k10a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is also written, Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>] delivereth from death.<a id="k10a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Why this double mention of righteousness? &mdash; One that delivers him from an unnatural death and one that delivers him from the punishment of Gehinnom. Which is the one that delivers him from the punishment of Gehinnom? The one in connection with which the word 'wrath' is used, as it is written, A day of wrath is that day.<a id="k10a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; What kind of charity is that which delivers a man from an unnatural death?
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k10b_1:" Who used every day to put four <I>zuzim</I> in a box for the poor of his immediate neighbourhood, so that he knew to whom he gave though they did not know from whom they received."
,k10b_2:" Who used to go into a poor neighbourhood and drop coins behind him, so that the poor knew who gave but he did not know who received. v. Keth. 6a."
,k10b_3:" I.e., as reliable as R. Hanina, but not necessarily as pious. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H]."
,k10b_4:" Lit., 'If thou wilt lift up'. (E.V. '<I>When thou takest up</I>'.) The reference is to the ransom that was to be taken from the Israelites whenever they were numbered, Ex. XXX, 12. This ransom was to be given for the service of the Tabernacle, but money given for charity according to the Rabbis serves the same purpose."
,k10b_5:" Ps. CXII, 9."
,k10b_6:" Isa. XXXIII, 16."
,k10b_7:" Isa. XXIV, 23. I.e., everyone who is honoured in this world for his wisdom."
,k10b_8:" I.e., the poor who are despised here are highly honoured there. But v. also Tosaf, s.v. [H]"
,k10b_9:" Who were martyred after the suppression of the revolt of Bar Cochba."
,k10b_10:" Lulianus and Pappus, who were executed in Lydda in the reign of Hadrian. [On these martyrs, v. J.E. IX, 512, s.v. Pappus.]"
,k10b_11:" Prov. XIV, 34."
,k10b_12:" II Sam. VII, 23."
,k10b_13:" Ezra VI, 10. Artaxerxes wrote thus to the Governor of Jerusalem when he ordered him to give Ezra all that he required."
,k10b_14:" Because the Israelite, whatever he may say, really gives the charity for its own sake."
,k10b_15:" Dan, IV, 27."
,k10b_16:" Prov. XXI, 24."
,k10b_17:" Zeph. I, 15."
,k10b_18:" From Modim, near Jerusalem, the ancient home of the Maccabean family."
,k10b_19:" Jer. XL, 3. Spoken by Nebuzaradan to Jeremiah."
,k10b_20:" And we translate the verse: Righteousness exalteth a nation (Israel), and the kindness of peoples is a sin &mdash; offering for them."
,k10b_21:" V. <i>supra</i> 8a."
,k10b_22:" [R. Ammi at Caesarea (Hyman op cit. p. 222)]."
,k10b_23:" [V. D.S. a.l.]"
,k10b_24:" Lit., 'to be at peace with'."
,k10b_25:" Isa. XXVII, 11. When the heathen have received the reward of their pious deeds in this world, their power will be broken. "
}

txt:
<p>
When a man gives without knowing to whom he gives. and the beggar receives without knowing from whom he receives. 'He gives without knowing to whom he gives': this excludes the practice of Mar 'Ukba.<a id="k10b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The beggar receives without knowing from whom he receives': this excludes the practice of R. Abba.<a id="k10b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; How is a man then to do? &mdash; He should put his money into the charity box.
</p><p>
	The following was adduced in objection to this: 'What is a man to do in order that he may have male offspring? R. Eliezer says that he should give generously to the poor; R. Joshua says that he should make his wife glad to perform the marital office. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: A man should not put a farthing into the charity box unless it is under the supervision of a man like R. Hanina b. Teradion'?<a id="k10b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In saying [that a man should put his money into the charity box] we mean, when it is under the supervision of a man like R. Hanina b. Teradion.
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu said: Moses addressed himself to the Holy One, blessed be He, saying: 'Sovereign of the Universe, wherewith shall the horn of Israel be exalted?' He replied, 'Through taking their ransom.'<a id="k10b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abbahu also said: Solomon the son of David was asked: How far does the power of charity extend? He replied: Go and see what my father David has stated on the matter: He hath dispersed, he hath given to the needy, his righteousness endureth for ever.<a id="k10b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Abba said: [The answer might be given] from here: He shall dwell on high; his place of defence shall be the munitions of the rocks; his bread is given him, his waters are sure.<a id="k10b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Why shall he dwell on high and his place be with the munitions of the rocks? Because his bread is given [to the poor], atid his waters are sure.
</p><p>
	R. Abbahu also said: Solomon was asked: Who has a place in the future world? He answered: He to whom are applied the words, and before his elders shall be glory.<a id="k10b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; A similar remark was made by Joseph the son of R. Joshua. He had been ill and fell in a trance. [After he recovered], his father said to him: 'What vision did you have?' He replied, 'I saw a world upside down, the upper below and the lower above.'<a id="k10b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He said to him: 'You saw a well regulated world.' [He asked further]: 'In what condition did you see us [students]?' He replied: 'As our esteem is here, so it is there. I also [he continued] heard them saying, Happy he who comes here in full possession of his learning. I also heard them saying, No creature can attain to the place [in heaven] assigned to the martyrs of the [Roman] Government.' Who are these? Shall I say R. Akiba and his comrades?<a id="k10b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Had they no other merit but this? Obviously even without this [they would have attained this rank]. What is meant therefore must be the martyrs of Lud.<a id="k10b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said to his disciples: My sons, what is the meaning of the verse, <I>Righteousness exalteth a nation, but the kindness of the peoples is sin</I>?<a id="k10b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Eliezer answered and said: <I>'Righteousness exalteth a nation</I>:' this refers to Israel of whom it is written, <I>Who is like thy people Israel one nation in the earth</I>?<a id="k10b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; But <I>'the kindness of the peoples is sin'</I>: all the charity and kindness done by the heathen is counted to them as sin, because they only do it to magnify themselves, as it says, <I>That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savour unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons</I>.<a id="k10b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But is not an act of this kind charity in the full sense of the word, seeing that it has been taught: 'If a man says, &mdash; I give this sela for charity in order that my sons may live and that I may be found worthy of the future world, he may all the same be a righteous man in the full sense of the word'? &mdash; There is no contradiction; in the one case we speak of an Israelite, in the other of a heathen.<a id="k10b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Joshuah answered and said: <I>'Righteousness exalteth a nation,</I>' this refers to Israel of whom it is written, Who is like thy people Israel, one nation on the earth? 'The kindness of peoples is sin': all the charity and kindness that the heathen do is counted sin to them, because they only do it in order that their dominion may be prolonged, as it says, Wherefore O king, let my counsel be acceptable to thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thy iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, if there may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.<a id="k10b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabban Gamaliel answered Saying: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation': this refers to Israel of whom it is written, Who is like thy people Israel etc. 'And the kindness of the peoples is sin:' all the charity and kindness that the heathen do is counted as sin to them, because they only do it to display haughtiness, and whoever displays haughtiness is cast into Gehinnom, as it says, The proud and haughty man, scorner is his name, he worketh in the wrath ['ebrah] of pride,<a id="k10b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and 'wrath' connotes Gehinnom, as it is written, A day of wrath is that day.<a id="k10b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Rabban Gamaliel: We have still to hear the opinion of the Modiite. R. Eliezer the Modiite<a id="k10b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; says: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation': this refers to Israel of whom it is written, Who is like thy people Israel, one nation in the earth. 'The kindness of the peoples is sin': all the charity and kindness of the heathen is counted to them as sin, since they do it only to reproach us, as it says, The Lord hath brought it and done according as he spake, because ye have sinned against the Lord and have not obeyed his voice, therefore this thing is come upon you.<a id="k10b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nehuniah b. ha-Kanah answered saying: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation, and there is kindness for Israel and a sin-offering for the peoples.' Said R. Johanan b. Zakkai to his disciples: 'The answer of R. Nehuniah b. ha-Kanah is superior to my answer and to yours, because he assigns charity and kindness to Israel and sin to the heathen.' This seems to show that he also gave an answer; what was it? &mdash; As it has been taught: R. Johanan b. Zakkai said to them: Just as the sin-offering makes atonement for Israel, so charity makes atonement for the heathen.<a id="k10b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Ifra Hormiz<a id="k10b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; the mother of King Shapur sent four hundred dinarim to R. Ammi,<a id="k10b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; a but he would not accept them. She<a id="k10b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; then sent them to Raba, and he accepted them, in order not to offend<a id="k10b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; the Government. When R. Ammi heard, he was indignant and said: Does he not hold with the verse, When the boughs thereof are withered they shall be broken off, the women shall come and set them on fire?<a id="k10b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba [defended himself] on the ground that he wished not to offend the Government. Was not R. Ammi also anxious not to offend the Government? &mdash; [He was angry] because he ought to have distributed the money to the non-Jewish poor. But Raba did distribute it to the non-Jewish poor? &mdash; The reason R. Ammi was indignant was
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k11a_1:" I.e., he had not been told that Raba had distributed the money to non-Jewish poor, as was not unusual. [The alms distributed by heathens were frequently derived from robbery, hence the Rabbis' attitude towards heathen charity; v. Buchler, Sepphoris, p. 44.]"
,k11a_2:" In the heavenly records."
,k11a_3:" [King of Adiabene (first century C.E.) who embraced Judaism. v. Josephus Ant. XX, 2-4.]"
,k11a_4:" Ps. LXXXV, II. The righteousness (zedek) here is God's righteousness in rewarding good deeds."
,k11a_5:" Ibid. XCVII, 2."
,k11a_6:" Isa. III, 10."
,k11a_7:" Prov. XI, 30."
,k11a_8:" I.e., the <i>zedakah</i> shall be your own. Deut. XXIV, 13."
,k11a_9:" Isa. LVIII, 8."
,k11a_10:" Even too small to build a house on,"
,k11a_11:" I.e., an area for the sowing of nine <i>kabs</i>. 1 kab's space = 416 square cubits."
,k11a_12:" [Or 'water-tower' (Aruk).]"
,k11a_13:" Not necessarily as much as nine <i>kabs</i>."
,k11a_14:" I.e., scrolls of Scripture, since to cut them up shows disrespect."
,k11a_15:" A space of four cubits was allowed in front of each door for loading and unloading animals. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k11a_16:" Lit., 'A courtyard is divided according to its entrances'. If one has a house with two doors opening on to the courtyard and the other only one door, the former takes two-thirds and the latter one-third."
,k11a_17:" For feeding animals."
,k11a_18:" Because then he requires space to get behind it. "
}

txt:
<p>
that he had not been fully informed.<a id="k11a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	It has been taught: The following incident is related of Benjamin the Righteous who was a supervisor of the charity fund. One day a woman came to him in a year of scarcity, and said to him: 'Sir, assist me.' He replied, 'I swear, there is not a penny in the charity fund.' She said, 'Sir, if you do not assist me, a woman and her seven children will perish.' He accordingly assisted her out of his own pocket. Some time afterwards he became dangerously ill. The angels addressed the Holy One, blessed be He, saying: Sovereign of the Universe, Thou hast said that he who preserves one soul of Israel is considered as if he had preserved the whole world; shall then Benjamin the Righteous who has preserved a woman and her seven children die at so early an age? Straightway his sentence<a id="k11a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; was torn up. It has been taught that twenty-two years were added to his life.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: It is related of King Monobaz<a id="k11a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; that he dissipated all his own hoards and the hoards of his fathers in years of scarcity. His brothers and his father's household came in a deputation to him and said to him, 'Your father saved money and added to the treasures of his fathers, and you are squandering them.' He replied: 'My fathers stored up below and I am storing above, as it says, Truth springeth out of the earth and righteousness looketh down from heaven.<a id="k11a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; My fathers stored in a place which can be tampered with, but I have stored in a place which cannot be tampered with, as it says, Righteousness and judgment are the foundation of his throne.<a id="k11a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; My fathers stored something which produces no fruits, but I have stored something which does produce fruits, as it is written, Say ye of the righteous [zaddik] that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat of the fruit of their doings.<a id="k11a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; My fathers gathered treasures of money, but I have gathered treasures of souls, as it is written, The fruit of the righteous [zaddik] is a tree of life, and he that is wise winneth souls.<a id="k11a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; My fathers gathered for others and I have gathered for myself, as it says, And for thee it shall be righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>].<a id="k11a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; My fathers gathered for this world, but I have gathered for the future world, as it says, Thy righteousness [<i>zedakah</i>] shall go before thee, and the glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward.'<a id="k11a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	IF HE ACQUIRES A RESIDENCE IN IT, HE IS COUNTED AS ONE OF THE TOWNSMEN. The Mishnah is not in agreement with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, since it has been taught: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If he acquires a piece of property, however small,<a id="k11a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; in it, he is reckoned as a townsman. But has it not been taught: If he acquires in it a piece of ground on which a residence can be put up [but not smaller], he is reckoned as one of the townsmen? &mdash; Two Tannaim have reported the dictum of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel differently.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A COURTYARD SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED UNLESS THERE WILL BE [AFTER THE DIVISION] AT LEAST FOUR CUBITS FOR EACH OF THE PARTIES. A FIELD SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED UNLESS THERE WILL BE NINE KABS' [SPACE]<a id="k11a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR EACH. R. JUDAH SAYS, UNLESS THERE WILL BE NINE HALF-<I>KABS</I> [SPACE] FOR EACH. A VEGETABLE GARDEN SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED UNLESS THERE WILL BE HALF A <I>KAB</I> FOR EACH. R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAYS, A QUARTER KAB'S SPACE. A HALL, A DRAWING ROOM,<a id="k11a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; A DOVECOT, A GARMENT, A BATHHOUSE, AN OLIVE PRESS AND AN IRRIGATED PLOT OF LAND SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED UNLESS SUFFICIENT WILL BE LEFT FOR EACH PARTY.<a id="k11a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT IF AFTER THE DIVISION EACH PART WILL RETAIN THE DESIGNATION APPLIED TO THE WHOLE, THE DIVISION MAY BE MADE, BUT IF NOT, IT SHOULD NOT BE MADE. WHEN IS THIS THE RULE? WHEN ONE OR OTHER OF THE OWNERS IS NOT WILLING TO DIVIDE. BUT IF BOTH AGREE, THEY CAN DIVIDE EVEN IF LESS THAN THESE QUANTITIES [WILL BE LEFT]. SACRED WRITINGS, HOWEVER, MAY NOT BE DIVIDED EVEN IF BOTH AGREE.<a id="k11a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: The four cubits [of the courtyard] mentioned [in the Mishnah] are exclusive of the space in front of the doors.<a id="k11a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been also taught to the same effect: A courtyard should not be divided unless eight cubits will be left to each party. But have we not learnt, FOUR CUBITS TO EACH? &mdash; The fact [that the Baraitha says eight] shows [that we must interpret the Mishnah] as R. Assi indicates. Some put this argument in the form of a contradiction: We learn, A COURTYARD SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED UNLESS THERE WILL BE FOUR CUBITS FOR EACH OF THE PARTIES. [But how can this be], seeing that it has been taught: 'Unless there are eight cubits for each'? &mdash; R. Assi answered in the name of R. Johanan: The four cubits mentioned [in the Mishnah] are exclusive of the space in front of the doors.
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: Each party takes a share in the courtyard proportionate to the number of his doors;<a id="k11a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda, however, says that four cubits are allowed for each door and the remainder is divided equally. It has been taught in agreement with R. Hisda: Doors opening on to the courtyard carry with them a space of four cubits. If one of the joint owners has one door and the other two doors, [if they divide] the one who has one door takes four cubits and the one who has two doors takes eight cubits, and the remainder is divided equally. If one has a doorway eight cubits broad, he takes eight cubits facing his door and four cubits in the courtyard. What are these four cubits in the courtyard doing here? &mdash; Abaye answered: What it means is this: He takes eight cubits in the length of the courtyard and four in the width of the courtyard.
</p><p>
	Amemar said: [A pit for holding] date stones<a id="k11a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; carries with it four cubits on every side. This is the case, however, only if he has no special door from which he goes to it,<a id="k11a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he has a special door for reaching it,
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k11b_1:" A covered way, open at the sides."
,k11b_2:" Having sides with lattice-windows, and not being suitable for unloading."
,k11b_3:" Which had only sides a few feet high, not reaching to the roof, yet preventing unloading. [V. Krauss, TA. I, 367.]"
,k11b_4:" At the entrance of a large house."
,k11b_5:" A verandah on an upper storey with rooms opening out on to it and reached by a ladder or stair from the courtyard."
,k11b_6:" In the courtyard in front of the ladder by which the landing is reached."
,k11b_7:" With a door opening into the courtyard."
,k11b_8:" The part away from the courtyard."
,k11b_9:" Because the unroofed part is not likely to be obstructed with furniture."
,k11b_10:" Lit., 'to turn round'."
,k11b_11:" Supposing his house abuts on two alley-ways."
,k11b_12:" I.e., if a certain number are billeted on a courtyard, are they distributed equally among all the residents of the courtyard. (V. however Tosaf. or Maim. Yad Shekenim II, 8.]"
,k11b_13:" I.e., the door of a courtyard opening on to an alley-way which leads to the public thoroughfare."
,k11b_14:" Lit., 'increases the way for them'. This would more naturally mean, 'makes them go roundabout way' (So Rashi). We do not, however, find anywhere that the residents of a courtyard had a right to a space in the alley-way facing their gate, as they had in the courtyard facing their door. Tosaf. therefore supposes that the reference here is to the resident of the courtyard at the extreme end of the alley-way, where it forms a cul-de-sac. Hence the rendering adopted."
,k11b_15:" The one nearest the street."
,k11b_16:" Why then should he not be allowed to fence in the space facing his door seeing that the others have no right to use that part?"
,k11b_17:" Which supports the opinion of R. Huna."
,k11b_18:" And contrary to the opinion of R. Huna."
,k11b_19:" Because he thus shows that it is his intention to reopen it one day. "
}

txt:
<p>
it carries with it only four cubits in front of his door.
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: An <i>exedra</i><a id="k11b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; does not carry with it four cubits. For why are the four cubits ordinarily allowed? To provide space for the owner to unload his animals. If there is an <i>exedra</i> he can go into it and unload there. R. Shesheth raised an objection [to this from the following]: 'Gates of exedras equally with gates of houses carry with them four cubits? &mdash; That was taught in reference to the <i>exedra</i> of a school-house. That the gate of the <i>exedra</i> of a schoolhouse carries with it four cubits is obvious, is it not, since it is a proper room?<a id="k11b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We should say, therefore, [that it was taught in reference to a] Roman <i>exedra</i>.<a id="k11b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A lodge,<a id="k11b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; an <i>exedra</i>, and a balcony<a id="k11b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; carry with them four cubits. If there are five rooms opening on to the balcony, they carry with them only four cubits between them.<a id="k11b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan inquired of R. Jannai whether a hen-coop<a id="k11b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; carried with it four cubits or not. He replied: Why are the four cubits ordinarily allowed? &mdash; To provide room for a man to unload his animal. Here the fowls can clamber up the wall to get out and clamber down the wall to get in.
</p><p>
	Raba inquired of R. Nahman: If a room is half roofed over and half unroofed, has it four cubits or not? He replied: It has not four cubits. If the roofing is over the inner part,<a id="k11b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; this goes without saying, since it is possible for him to go into the room and unload.<a id="k11b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But even if the roofing is over the outer part, it is still possible for him to go right through and unload [under the open part].
</p><p>
	R. Huna inquired of R. Ammi: If a man residing in one alleyway desires to open<a id="k11b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; a door on to another alley-way,<a id="k11b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; can the residents of this alley-way prevent him or not? He replied: They can prevent him. He then inquired: Are troops billeted per capita<a id="k11b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; or [on each one] according to the number of his doors? He replied: Per capita. It has been taught to the same effect: The dung in the courtyard is divided according to doors [belonging to each resident], billeted troops per capita.
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: If one of the residents of an alley-way desires to fence in the space facing his door,<a id="k11b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; the others can prevent him, on the ground that he forces more people into their space.<a id="k11b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was brought [against this from the following]: 'If five [adjoining] courtyards open on an alley-way, all [the inner ones] share with the outside one<a id="k11b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; the use [of the part facing it], but the outside one can use that part only. The remainder [the inner three] share with the second, but the second has the use only of the part facing itself and the outside one. Thus the innermost one has sole use of the part facing itself and shares with all the others [the use of the part facing them]'?<a id="k11b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, as it has been taught: If one of the residents of an alley-way desires to open a door on to another alley-way, the residents of that alley-way can prevent him. If, however, he only desires to reopen there one which had been closed, they cannot prevent him. This is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: If there are five adjoining courtyards opening on to an alleyway, they all share the use of it alike.<a id="k11b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; How does 'courtyards' come in here? &mdash; There is a lacuna in the text, and it should run as follows: [They cannot prevent him;] and similarly, if there are five courtyards opening on to an alley-way, all share with the outside one, but the outside one can use that part only etc. This is the opinion of Rabbi.<a id="k11b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that if five courtyards open on to an alley-way, they all share the use of it.
</p><p>
	The Master has stated: If he desires to reopen a door which has been closed, the residents of the other courtyard cannot prevent him. Raba said: This rule was meant to apply only if he had not taken down the posts of the closed door,<a id="k11b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; but if he had done so, then the residents of the courtyard can prevent him reopening it. Abaye said to Raba: It has been taught in support of your opinion:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k14a_1:" He should therefore take care that in case he decides to divide, one of the scrolls does not commence with an empty space of four lines. Tosaf. points out that this seems to contradict the rule given above, that a scroll should not be divided, and explains that this applies only to a division between two owners."
,k14a_2:" Which would require a much larger piece at the end."
,k14a_3:" Which would require much less at the beginning."
,k14a_4:" I.e., enough for the stick at the beginning and the circumference at the end."
,k14a_5:" Which has two cylinders."
,k14a_6:" Having only one cylinder."
,k14a_7:" When rolled up."
,k14a_8:" I.e., what should be its length so that when the text had been completed in script of ordinary size the length should be equal to the circumference."
,k14a_9:" 'Split parchment'."
,k14a_10:" Deut. XXXIII, 4. Life would not be long enough for writing four hundred complete scrolls."
,k14a_11:" V. Sotah 43a."
,k14a_12:" I.e., one next to the other along the length of the ark."
,k14a_13:" Viz., for the thickness."
,k14a_14:" I Kings VIII, 9."
,k14a_15:" One handbreadth = 4 finger-breadths."
,k14a_16:" Two silver sticks like the sticks of a scroll placed on each side of the tables."
,k14a_17:" Cant. III, 9-10."
,k14a_18:" I Sam. VI, 8."
,k14a_19:" Deut. XXXI, 26."
,k14a_20:" I.e., the double limitation. "
}

txt:
<p>
and if he wants to divide he may do so. What is the meaning [of these last words]? &mdash; What it means is, Because if he wants to divide he may do so.<a id="k14a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A contradiction was pointed out [between this rule and the following]: At the beginning of the book and the end there must be sufficient empty space to roll round. To roll round what? If to roll round the cylinder, this contradicts what was said about the circumference!<a id="k14a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If to roll round the circumference, this contradicts what was said about the cylinder!<a id="k14a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: The statement applies in both ways.<a id="k14a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi, however, replied that this statement refers only to a Scroll of the Law,<a id="k14a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; as it has been taught: Other books are rolled up from the beginning to the end,<a id="k14a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but the Scroll of the Law closes at its middle, there being a cylinder at each end. R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok said: This is how the scribes in Jerusalem used to make their scrolls.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: A scroll of the Law should be such that its length does not exceed its circumference nor Its circumference its length,<a id="k14a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbi was asked what should be the size of a scroll of the Law.<a id="k14a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: With thick parchment, six handbreadths, with thin parchment<a id="k14a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; I do not know. R. Huna wrote seventy scrolls of the Law and hit the exact measurement with only one. R. Aha b. Jacob wrote one on calf's skin, and hit it exactly. The Rabbis looked at him [enviously] and he died. The Rabbis said to R. Hamnuna: R. Ammi wrote four hundred scrolls of the Law. He said to them: Perhaps he copied out the verse, Moses commanded us a law.<a id="k14a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba [similarly] said to R. Zera: R. Jannai planted four hundred vineyards, and he answered: Perhaps each consisted of two and two vines facing and one as a tail.<a id="k14a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection was brought [against the statement regarding the size of a scroll from the following]: The ark which Moses made was two cubits and a half in length, a cubit and a half in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height, the cubit being six handbreadths. The tablets were six handbreadths in length, six in breadth and three in thickness. They were placed lengthwise in the ark.<a id="k14a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Now how much of the length of the ark was taken up by the tablets? Twelve handbreadths. Three therefore were left. Take away one handbreadth, a half for each side of the ark,<a id="k14a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; and there were left two handbreadths, and in these the scroll of the Law was deposited. [That a scroll was in the ark we know because] it says, There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there.<a id="k14a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Now in the words 'nothing' and 'save' we have a limitation following a limitation, and the purpose of a limitation following a limitation is to intimate the presence of something which is not mentioned, in this case the scroll of the Law which was deposited in the ark. You have accounted for the length of the ark, now account for its breadth. How much of the [breadth of the] ark do the tables take up? Six handbreadths. Three therefore are left. Take away one, half for [the thickness of] each side, and two are left, so as to allow the scroll to be put in and taken out without squeezing. This is the opinion of R. Meir. R. Judah says that the cubit of the ark had only five handbreadths. The tables were six handbreadths in length, six in breadth and three in thickness, and were deposited lengthwise in the ark. How much did they take up of the ark? Twelve handbreadths. There was thus left half a handbreadth, a finger's breadth<a id="k14a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; for each side. You have accounted for the length of the ark, now go and account for its breadth. How much of the [breadth of the] ark was taken up by the tablets? Six handbreadths. There were thus left a handbreadth and a half. Take away from them half a handbreadth, a finger's breadth for each side, and there will be left a handbreadth. Here were deposited the columns<a id="k14a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; mentioned in the verse, King Solomon made himself a palanquin of the wood of Lebanon, he made the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom there of of gold, the seat of purple, etc.<a id="k14a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; At the side of the ark was placed the coffer in which the Philistines sent a present to the God of Israel, as it says, And put the jewels of gold which ye return him for a guilt offering in a coffer by the side thereof, and send it away that it may go,<a id="k14a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and on this was placed the scroll of the Law, as it says, Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord;<a id="k14a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; It was placed by the side of the ark and not in it. What then do I make of the words, There was nought in the ark save?<a id="k14a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; This intimates that
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k14b_1:" The first tables which Moses broke."
,k14b_2:" And therefore the scroll must have been two handbreadths wide."
,k14b_3:" If we assume with R. Meir that there was a scroll in the ark."
,k14b_4:" On Tabernacles, in accordance with Deut. XXXI, 9-13."
,k14b_5:" Since there was no room for them in the ark alongside the Scroll at the base of the tables."
,k14b_6:" Seeing that the verse on which R. Judah bases this is needed by him for another lesson."
,k14b_7:" II Sam. VI, 2."
,k14b_8:" Deut. X, 2."
,k14b_9:" [H], a play on [H]."
,k14b_10:" Although I did not tell thee. The words 'which thou brakest' can be utilised for this lesson because they are strictly speaking superfluous."
,k14b_11:" Hos. I; 2."
,k14b_12:" In the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah."
,k14b_13:" I.e., copied on the same scroll."
,k14b_14:" Strictly speaking, this applies only to the latter half of Isaiah, ch. XL-LXVI, though strains of consolation are interspersed throughout the first part also."
,k14b_15:" With the exception of Job, the order is meant to be chronological, Ruth being ascribed to Samuel, the Psalms to David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs to Solomon, Lamentations to Jeremiah, and Esther to the period of the Captivity (v. Rashi)."
,k14b_16:" As it says, 'And there was a famine in the land'. (Ruth I, 1.)"
,k14b_17:" [H] which R. Johanan connects with [H]"
,k14b_18:" The parables of Balaam in Num. XXIII, XXIV."
,k14b_19:" Recording the death of Moses. "
}

txt:
<p>
the fragments of the tables<a id="k14b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; were [also] deposited in the ark. Now if we assume that the circumference of the scroll was six handbreadths, &mdash; let us see: a circumference of three handbreadths means a width of one.<a id="k14b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Since then the scroll closed in the middle, the space between the two cylinders must have been over and above the two handbreadths. How did this get in to the two handbreadths?<a id="k14b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The scroll read in the Temple Court<a id="k14b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; was rolled round one cylinder. Even so, how could two handbreadths get into exactly two? R. Ashi replied: The scroll was rolled together up to a certain point [and placed in the ark], and then the remainder was rolled up on top.
</p><p>
	If we accept R. Judah's theory, where was the scroll placed before the coffer came? &mdash; A ledge projected from the ark, and on this the scroll was placed. What does R. Meir make of the words, At the side of the ark? &mdash; This is to indicate that the scroll is to be placed at the side of the tables and not between them; but even so, it was in the ark, only at the side.
</p><p>
	According to R. Meir, where were the [silver] sticks placed?<a id="k14b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Outside. And whence does R. Meir learn that the fragments of the [first] tables were deposited in the ark?<a id="k14b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; From the same source as R. Huna, who said: What is the meaning of the verse, Which is called by the Name, even the name of the Lord of Hosts that sitteth upon the Cherubim?<a id="k14b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [The repetition of the word 'name'] teaches that the tables and the fragments of the tables were deposited in the ark. And, what does R. Judah make of these words? &mdash; He requires them for the lesson enunciated by R. Johanan, who 'said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: This teaches us that the Name [of four letters] and all the subsidiary names [of God] were deposited in the ark. And does not R. Meir also require the verse for this lesson? &mdash; Certainly he does. Whence then does he learn that the fragments of the first tables were deposited in the ark? He learns it from the exposition reported [also] by R. Joseph. For R. Joseph learned: Which thou brakest and thou shalt put them:<a id="k14b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [the juxtaposition of these words] teaches us that both the tablets and the fragments of the tablets were deposited in the ark. And what does R. Judah make of this verse? &mdash; He requires it for the lesson enunciated by Resh Lakish, who said: Which thou brakest: God said to Moses, Thou hast done well<a id="k14b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; to break.<a id="k14b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: The order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written, God spake first to Hosea.<a id="k14b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; But did God speak first to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between Moses and Hosea? R. Johanan, however, has explained that [what It means is that] he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at that period,<a id="k14b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; namely, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Should not then Hosea come first? &mdash; Since his prophecy is written along with<a id="k14b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; those of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is reckoned with them. But why should he not be written separately and placed first? &mdash; Since his book is so small, it might be lost [if copied separately]. Let us see again. Isaiah was prior to Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Then why should not Isaiah be placed first? &mdash; Because the Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction and Jeremiah speaks throughout of destruction and Ezekiel commences with destruction and ends with consolation and Isaiah is full of consolation;<a id="k14b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; therefore we put destruction next to destruction and consolation next to consolation.
</p><p>
	The order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.<a id="k14b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Now on the view that Job lived in the days of Moses, should not the book of Job come first? &mdash; We do not begin with a record of suffering. But Ruth also is a record of suffering?<a id="k14b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It is a suffering with a sequel [of happiness], as R. Johanan said: Why was her name called Ruth? &mdash; Because there issued from her David who replenished<a id="k14b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; the Holy One, blessed be He, with hymns and praises.
</p><p>
	Who wrote the Scriptures? &mdash; Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam<a id="k14b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and [the last] eight verses of the Pentateuch.<a id="k14b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the Book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders, namely, Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Yeduthun, Asaph,
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k15a_1:" To Adam are ascribed the verses, <I>Thine eyes did see mine imperfect substance</I> etc. (Ps. CXXXIX, 16); to Melchizedek Ps. CX; to Moses, Ps. XC. Abraham is identified with Ethan the Ezrahite (Ps. LXXXIX)."
,k15a_2:" [H] = <I>Yeshaiah</I> (Isaiah); [H] = <I>Mishle</I> (Proverbs); [H] = <I>Shir ha-Shirim</I> (Song of Songs); [H] = <I>Koheleth</I> (Ecclesiastes). The word 'wrote' here seems to have the meaning of 'edited' or 'published'."
,k15a_3:" According to Rashi, Isaiah was executed by Manasseh before he could reduce his own prophecies to writing."
,k15a_4:" V. Prov. XXV, 1."
,k15a_5:" [H] = <I>Ezekiel</I>; [H] = <I>Shenem 'Asar</I> (Twelve minor prophets); [H] = Daniel; [H] = <I>Megillath Esther</I> (The Scroll of Esther)."
,k15a_6:" Rashi supposes that the reason why Ezekiel did not write his own book was that he lived out of Eretz Yisrael. The same reason applies to Daniel."
,k15a_7:" Who apparently did not publish their prophecies themselves because they were too small."
,k15a_8:" This includes Nehemiah."
,k15a_9:" Deut. XXXIV, 5."
,k15a_10:" Deut. XXXI, 26. And this was said by Moses before he died."
,k15a_11:" Jer. XXXVI, 18."
,k15a_12:" Apparently this means that it is not requisite that another person should stand by him, as in the case of the rest of the Torah. Or it may mean that these eight verses must always be read to (or by) one person only."
,k15a_13:" Josh. XXIV, 29."
,k15a_14:" Ibid. 33."
,k15a_15:" I Sam. XXVIII, 3."
,k15a_16:" Ps. LXXXIX, I."
,k15a_17:" Isa. XLI, 2. The word 'ezrahi' is also taken to mean 'eastern', while 'Ethan' (strong) is regarded as equivalent to 'righteous'."
,k15a_18:" The word 'heman' is also taken to mean 'faithful'."
,k15a_19:" [Var. lec., rpx 'the book'.]"
,k15a_20:" Job XIX, 23."
,k15a_21:" Ex. XXXIII, 16."
,k15a_22:" Gen. XXVII, 33."
,k15a_23:" Gen. XLIII, II."
,k15a_24:" Ibid. XXXVII, 16."
,k15a_25:" Deut. XXXIII, 21."
,k15a_26:" Job 1, 1."
,k15a_27:" Num. XIII, 20."
,k15a_28:" To teach men the virtue of resignation."
,k15a_29:" II Sam. XII, 3. This was Nathan's parable to David. "
}

txt:
<p>
and the three sons of Korah.<a id="k15a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the Book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote (Mnemonic YMSHK)<a id="k15a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Isaiah,<a id="k15a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Proverbs,<a id="k15a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (Mnemonic KNDG)<a id="k15a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Ezekiel,<a id="k15a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the Twelve Minor Prophets,<a id="k15a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Daniel and the Scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote the book that bears his name<a id="k15a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; and the genealogies of the Book of Chronicles up to his own time. This confirms the opinion of Rab, since Rab Judah has said in the name of Rab: Ezra did not leave Babylon to go up to Eretz Yisrael until he had written his own genealogy. Who then finished it [the Book of Chronicles]? &mdash; Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah.
</p><p>
	The Master has said: Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and the last eight verses of the Pentateuch. This statement is in agreement with the authority who says that eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua, as it has been taught: [It is written], So Moses the servant of the Lord died there.<a id="k15a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Now is it possible that Moses being dead could have written the words, 'Moses died there'? The truth is, however, that up to this point Moses wrote, from this point Joshua wrote. This is the opinion of R. Judah, or, according to others, of R. Nehemiah. Said R. Simeon to him: Can [we imagine the] scroll of the Law being short of one word, and is it not written, Take this book of the Law?<a id="k15a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; No; what we must say is that up to this point the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moses repeated and wrote, and from this point God dictated and Moses wrote with tears, as it says of another occasion, Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.<a id="k15a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Which of these two authorities is followed in the rule laid down by R. Joshua b. Abba which he said in the name of R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab: The last eight verses of the Torah must be read [in the Synagogue service] by one person alone?<a id="k15a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It follows R. Judah and not R. Simeon. I may even say, however, that it follows R. Simeon, [who would say that] since they differ [from the rest of the Torah] in one way, they differ in another.
</p><p>
	[You say that] Joshua wrote his book. But is it not written, And Joshua son of Nun the servant of the Lord died?<a id="k15a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was completed by Eleazar. But it is also written in it, And Eleazar the son of Aaron died?<a id="k15a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Phineas finished it. [You say that] Samuel wrote the book that bears his name. But is it not written in it, Now Samuel was dead?<a id="k15a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It was completed by Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet. [You say that] David wrote the Psalms, including work of the ten elders. Why is not Ethan the Ezrahite also reckoned with? &mdash; Ethan the Ezrahite is Abraham. [The proof is that] it is written in the Psalms, Ethan the Ezrahite,<a id="k15a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written elsewhere, <I>Who hath raised up righteousness from the East</I>.<a id="k15a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[The passage above] reckons both Moses and Heman. But has not Rab said that Moses is Heman, [the proof being] that the name Heman is found here [in the Psalms] and it is written elsewhere [of Moses], <I>In all my house he is faithful</I>?<a id="k15a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; There were two Hemans.
</p><p>
	You say that Moses wrote his book and the section<a id="k15a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; of Balaam and Job. This supports the opinion of R. Joshua b. Levi b. Lahma who said that Job was contemporary with Moses &mdash; [The proof is that] it is written here [in connection with Job], O that my words were now [efo] written,<a id="k15a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written elsewhere [in connection with Moses], For wherein now [efo] shall it be known.<a id="k15a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; But on that ground I might say that he was contemporary with Isaac, in connection with whom it is written, Who now [efo] is he that took venison?<a id="k15a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; Or I might say that he was contemporary with Jacob, in connection with whom it is written, If so now [efo] do this?<a id="k15a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; or with Joseph, in connection with whom it is written, Where [efo] they are pasturing?<a id="k15a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; This cannot be maintained; [The proof that Job was contemporary with Moses is that] it is written [in continuation of the above words of Job], Would that they were inscribed in a book, and it is Moses who is called 'inscriber', as it is written, And he chose the first part for himself, for there was the lawgiver's [mehokek, lit. 'inscriber's'] portion reserved.<a id="k15a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said that Job was in the time of the spies. [The proof is that] it is written here [in connection with Job], There was a man in the land of Uz, Job was his name,<a id="k15a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written elsewhere [in connection with the spies], Whether there be wood [ez] therein.<a id="k15a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Where is the parallel? In one place it is Uz, in the other EZ? &mdash; What Moses said to Israel was this: [See] if that man is there whose years are as the years of a tree and who shelters his generation like a tree.
</p><p>
	A certain Rabbi was sitting before R. Samuel b. Nahmani and in the course of his expositions remarked, Job never was and never existed, but is only a typical figure.<a id="k15a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: To confute such as you the text says, There was a man in the land of Uz, Job was his name. But, he retorted, if that is so, what of the verse, The poor man had nothing save one poor ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up etc.<a id="k15a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; Is that anything but a parable? So this too is a parable. If so, said the other, why are his name and the name of his town mentioned?
</p><p>
	R. Johanan and R. Eleazar both stated that Job was among those who returned from the [Babylonian] Exile, and that his house of study was in Tiberias. An objection [to this view] was raised from the following: 'The span of Job's life was from the time that Israel entered Egypt till they left it.' &mdash; 
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k15b_1:" Viz. 210 years. Job's years were doubled after his sufferings and he lived on for 140 years. He must therefore have been 70 at the time. This makes a total of 210."
,k15b_2:" Against the idea that Job was an Israelite."
,k15b_3:" This seems to show that Job was a heathen prophet."
,k15b_4:" This is omitted in some texts."
,k15b_5:" Job XXXII, 2. Had he not been from Israel, his genealogy would not have been given. Or possibly 'Ram' is a name of Abraham (Rashi)."
,k15b_6:" Though he was himself an Israelite."
,k15b_7:" This is a literal translation of the opening words of the Book of Ruth, rendered in the E.V., 'in the days when the Judges judged.'"
,k15b_8:" Job XXVII, 12."
,k15b_9:" By the common people, in whom the judges inspire no respect."
,k15b_10:" Job XLII, is."
,k15b_11:" I Kings 1-3."
,k15b_12:" Job 1, 15."
,k15b_13:" Ibid. 17."
,k15b_14:" Ibid. 11, 10."
,k15b_15:" Gen. XXXIV, 7."
,k15b_16:" And all agree that Job was a prophet."
,k15b_17:" Ex. XXXIII, 16. This difficulty, however, would not arise if we suppose Job to have been in the days of Jacob."
,k15b_18:" Cant. VI, 13."
,k15b_19:" Isa. I, I."
,k15b_20:" This is the reading in 'En Yakob. In the text of the Talmud the word is 'eyes', which does not seem to make such good sense."
,k15b_21:" Cf. Isa. 1, 22."
,k15b_22:" 1 Kings X, 1."
,k15b_23:" Job 1, 6, 7."
,k15b_24:" Gen. XIII, 17."
,k15b_25:" Ibid. XXII, 12."
,k15b_26:" Job 1, 1."
,k15b_27:" Since a prutah cannot be divided, if a man owes a workman half a prutah he buys something in a shop with a prutah and gives the workman half."
,k15b_28:" Job 1, 9, 10."
,k15b_29:" Ibid."
,k15b_30:" Ibid."
,k15b_31:" Ibid. 11-14."
,k15b_32:" Ibid. 14. "
}

txt:
<p>
Say, As long as from the time they entered Egypt till they left it.<a id="k15b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; An objection was further raised<a id="k15b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [from the following]: Seven prophets prophesied to the heathen, namely, Balaam and his father, Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite, and Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite.<a id="k15b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied:<a id="k15b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Granted as you say [that Job was one of these], was not Elihu the son of Barachel from Israel, seeing that the Scripture mentions that he was from the family of Ram?<a id="k15b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Evidently [the reason why he is included] is because he prophesied to the heathen. So too Job [is included because] he prophesied to the heathen.<a id="k15b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; But did not all the prophets prophesy to the heathen? &mdash; Their prophecies were addressed primarily to Israel, but these addressed themselves primarily to the heathen.
</p><p>
	An objection was raised [from the following]: There was a certain pious man among the heathen named Job, but he [thought that he had] come into this world only to receive [here] his reward, and when the Holy One, blessed be He, brought chastisements upon him, he began to curse and blaspheme, so the Holy One, blessed be He, doubled his reward in this world so as to expel him from the world to come. There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, as it has been taught: R. Eliezer says that Job was in the days 'of the judging of the judges,'<a id="k15b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; as it says [in the book of Job], Behold all of you together have seen it; why then are ye become altogether vain?<a id="k15b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; What generation is it that is altogether vain? You must say, the generation where there is a 'judging of the judges'.<a id="k15b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua b. Korhah says: Job was in the time of Ahasuerus, for it says, And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job.<a id="k15b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; What was the generation in which fair women were sought out? You must say that this was the generation of Ahasuerus. But perhaps he was in the time of David [in connection with whom] it is written, So they sought for a fair damsel?<a id="k15b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In the case of David [the search was only] in all the border of Israel, in the case of Ahasuerus, in all the land. R. Nathan says that Job was in the time of the kingdom of Sheba, since it says, <I>The Sabaeans fell on them and took them away</I>.<a id="k15b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The Sages say that he was in the time of the Chaldeans, as it says, The Chaldeans made three bands.<a id="k15b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Some say that Job lived in the time of Jacob and married Dinah the daughter of Jacob. [The proof is that] it is written here [in the book of Job], Thou speakest as one of the impious women [nebaloth] speaketh,<a id="k15b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written in another place [in connection with Dinah], Because he had wrought folly [<i>nebelah</i>] it, Israel.<a id="k15b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; All these Tannaim agree that Job was from Israel, except those who say [that he lived in the days of Jacob]. [This must be so,] for if you suppose that [they regarded him as] a heathen, [the question would arise,] after the death of Moses how could the Divine Presence rest upon a heathen,<a id="k15b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; seeing that a Master has said, Moses prayed that the Divine Presence should not rest on heathens, and God granted his request as it says, That we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.<a id="k15b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: The generation of Job was given up to lewdness. [The proof is that] it says here [in the book of Job], Behold all of you have seen [hazitem] it; why then are ye become altogether vain? and it is written elsewhere, Return, return, O Shulamite, return, return that we may look upon [nehezeh,] thee.<a id="k15b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But may not the reference be to prophecy, as in the words, The vision [hazon] of Isaiah son of Amoz?<a id="k15b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If so, why does it say: Why are ye become altogether vain?
</p><p>
	R. Johanan further said: What is the import of the words, And it came to pass in the days of the judging of the judges? It was a generation which judged its judges. If the judge said to a man, 'Take the splinter from between your teeth,'<a id="k15b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; he would retort, 'Take the beam from between your eyes.' If the judge said, 'Your silver is dross,' he would retort, 'Your liquor is mixed with water.'<a id="k15b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whoever says that the malkath [queen] of Sheba was a woman is in error; the word malkath here<a id="k15b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; means the kingdom of Sheba.
</p><p>
	<I>Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. And the Lord said unto Satan, whence comest thou? And Satan answered</I> etc.<a id="k15b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; He addressed the Holy One, blessed be He, thus: Sovereign of the Universe, I have traversed the whole world and found none so faithful as thy servant Abraham. For Thou didst say to him, Arise, walk through the land to the length and the breadth of it, for to thee I will give it,<a id="k15b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and even so, when he was unable to find any place in which to bury Sarah until he bought one for four hundred <i>shekels</i> of silver, he did not complain against thy ways. Then the Lord said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for' there is none like him in the earth etc.
</p><p>
	Said R. Johanan: Greater praise is accorded to Job than to Abraham. For of Abraham it is written, For now I know that thou fearest God,<a id="k15b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas of Job it is written, That man was perfect and upright and one that feared God and eschewed evil.<a id="k15b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of 'eschewed evil'? &mdash; R. Abba b. Samuel said: Job was liberal with his money. Ordinarily, if a man owes half a prutah [to a workman], he spends it in a shop,<a id="k15b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; but Job used to make a present of it [to the workman].
</p><p>
	And then Satan answered the Lord and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast thou not made at hedge about him and about his house etc.<a id="k15b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of the words, Thou hast blessed the work of his hands?<a id="k15b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Samuel b. R. Isaac said: Whoever took a prutah from Job had luck with it. What is implied by the words, His cattle is increased in the land,<a id="k15b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Jose b. Hanina said: The cattle of Job broke through the general rule. Normally wolves kill goats, but in the cattle of Job the goats killed the wolves. But put forth thine hand now and touch all that he hath, and he will renounce thee to thy face &hellip; And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold all that he hath is in thy power, only upon himself put not forth thine hand etc.&nbsp;&hellip; And it fell on a day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house that there came a messenger unto Job and said, The oxen were plowing etc.<a id="k15b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; What is meant by the words, The oxen were plowing and the asses feeding beside them?<a id="k15b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Johanan said: This indicates that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Job a taste of the
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k16a_1:" R. Johanan understands the text to imply that so soon as the oxen had ploughed and the seed had been cast, the produce sprang up and the asses ate it. Similarly in the future world conception and birth will be on the same day (v. Sanh. 30b)."
,k16a_2:" Ibid. I, 18 &mdash; II, 2."
,k16a_3:" Ibid. 3."
,k16a_4:" Ibid. 4-7."
,k16a_5:" Ibid. 7."
,k16a_6:" Heb. Yezer Hara'."
,k16a_7:" Gen. VI, 5."
,k16a_8:" Job I, 12."
,k16a_9:" Ibid. II, 6."
,k16a_10:" I Sam. I, 6. By making Hannah fret, Peninah caused her to pray."
,k16a_11:" [A place between Bagdad and Pumbeditha, Obermeyer, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 242.]"
,k16a_12:" Out of gratitude."
,k16a_13:" Job II, 10."
,k16a_14:" Which shows that he harboured sinful thoughts?"
,k16a_15:" Ibid. IX, 24."
,k16a_16:" I.e., to declare all God's works worthless."
,k16a_17:" Ibid. X, 7."
,k16a_18:" Raba translates [H]: Didst thou will, I should not be wicked."
,k16a_19:" As much as to say, that the wall is not free."
,k16a_20:" Ibid. XV, 4."
,k16a_21:" Lit., 'spices'."
,k16a_22:" Ibid. XXIX, 13."
,k16a_23:" So Raba translates the word [H]."
,k16a_24:" By saying that she was a relative of his, or pretending to woo her."
,k16a_25:" Ibid. VI, 2."
,k16a_26:" By desiring to weigh his pleas in the balance with those of God."
,k16a_27:" Ibid. IX, 33."
,k16a_28:" Ibid.XXXI, I."
,k16a_29:" Gen.XII, 11."
,k16a_30:" Job VII, 9."
,k16a_31:" Ibid. IX, 17."
,k16a_32:" The Hebrew word is <I>se'arah</I>, which can also be translated 'hair'."
,k16a_33:" Ibid. XXXVIII, 1, 3."
,k16a_34:" Ibid. 25."
,k16a_35:" I Kings XVIII, 32."
,k16a_36:" Job XXXVIII, 25."
,k16a_37:" Ibid. XXXIX, 1. "
}

txt:
<p>
future world.<a id="k16a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; While he was yet speaking there came also another and said, The fire of God &hellip; While he was yet speaking there came also another and said, The Chaldeans made three bands&nbsp;&hellip; and fell upon the camels and have taken them away&nbsp;&hellip; While he was yet speaking there came also another and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house, and behold there came a great wind from the wilderness and smote the four corners of the house and it fell upon the young men&nbsp;&hellip; Then Job arose and rent his mantle and shaved his head &hellip; and he said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither; the Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. In all this Job sinned not nor charged God with foolishness. Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves&nbsp;&hellip; and the Lord said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord and said, From going to and fro in the earth etc.<a id="k16a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: Sovereign of the Universe, I have traversed the whole earth, and have not found one like thy servant Abraham. For thou didst say to him, Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and the breadth of it, for to thee I will give it, and when he wanted to bury Sarah he could not find a place in which to bury her, and yet he did not complain against thy ways. Then the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, for there is none like him in the earth&nbsp;&hellip; and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him to destroy him without cause.<a id="k16a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Johanan: Were it not expressly stated in the Scripture, we would not dare to say it. [God is made to appear] like a man who allows himself to be persuaded against his better judgment. A Tanna taught: [Satan] comes down to earth and seduces, then ascends to heaven and awakens wrath; permission is granted to him and he takes away the soul.
</p><p>
	And Satan answered the Lord and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will renounce thee to thy face. And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold he is in thine hand: only spare his life. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord and smote Job etc.<a id="k16a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Isaac said: Satan's torment was worse than that of Job; he was like a servant who is told by his master, 'Break the cask but do not let any of the wine spill.' Resh Lakish said: Satan, the evil prompter, and the Angel of Death are all one. He is called Satan, as it is written, And Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.<a id="k16a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; He is called the evil prompter:<a id="k16a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [we know this because] it is written in another place, [Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart] was only evil continually,<a id="k16a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written here [in connection with Satan] 'Only upon himself put not forth thine hand.<a id="k16a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; The same is also the Angel of Death, since it says, Only spare his life,<a id="k16a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; which shows that Job's life belonged to him.
</p><p>
	R. Levi said: Both Satan and Peninah had a pious purpose [in acting as adversaries]. Satan, when he saw God inclined to favour Job said, Far be it that God should forget the love of Abraham. Of Peninah it is written, And her rival provoked her sore for to make her fret.<a id="k16a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; When R. Aha b. Jacob gave this exposition in Papunia,<a id="k16a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Satan came and kissed his feet.<a id="k16a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	In all this did not Job sin with his lips.<a id="k16a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: With his lips he did not sin, but he did sin within his heart. What did he say?<a id="k16a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; The earth is given into the hand of the wicked, he covereth the faces of the judges thereof; if it be not so, where and who is he?<a id="k16a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Job sought to turn the dish upside down.<a id="k16a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye said: Job was referring only to the Satan. The same difference of opinion is found between Tannaim: The earth is given into the hand of the wicked. R. Eliezer said: Job sought to turn the dish upside down. R. Joshua said to him: Job was only referring to the Satan.
</p><p>
	Although thou knowest that I am not wicked, and there is none that can deliver out of thine hand.<a id="k16a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: Job sought to exculpate the whole world.<a id="k16a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: Sovereign of the Universe, Thou hast created the ox with cloven hoofs and thou hast created the ass with whole hoofs; thou hast created Paradise and thou hast created Gehinnom: thou hast created righteous men and thou hast created wicked men, and who can prevent thee?<a id="k16a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; His companions answered him: Yea, thou doest away with fear' and restrainest devotion before God.<a id="k16a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; If God created the evil inclination, He also created the Torah as its antidote.<a id="k16a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba expounded: What is meant by the verse, The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me, and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy.<a id="k16a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; 'The blessing of him that lost<a id="k16a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; came upon me:' this shows that Job used to rob orphans of a field and improve it and then restore it to them. 'And I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy:' if ever there was a widow who could not find a husband, he used to associate his name with her,<a id="k16a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and then someone would soon come and marry her. Oh that my vexation were but weighed, and my calamity laid ill the balances together.<a id="k16a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: Dust should be put in the mouth of Job, because he makes himself the colleague of heaven.<a id="k16a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; Would there were an umpire between us, that he might lay his hand upon us both.<a id="k16a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: Dust should be placed in the mouth of Job: is there a servant who argues with his master? I made a covenant with thine eyes; how then should I look upon a maid?<a id="k16a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; Rab said: Dust should be placed in the mouth of Job; he refrained from looking at other men's wives. Abraham did not even look at his own, as it is written, Behold now I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon,<a id="k16a_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; which shows that up to then he did not know.
</p><p>
	As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, so he that goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more.<a id="k16a_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: This shows that Job denied the resurrection of the dead. For he breaketh me with a tempest and multiplieth my wounds without cause.<a id="k16a_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabbah said: Job blasphemed with [mention of] a tempest, and with a tempest he was answered. He blasphemed with [mention of] a tempest, as it is written, For he breaketh me as with a tempest. Job said to God: Perhaps a tempest has passed before thee, and caused thee to confuse Iyob [Job] and Oyeb [enemy]. He was answered through a tempest, as it is written, <I>Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind<a id="k16a_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; and said, &hellip; Gird up now thy loins like a man, for I will demand of thee and declare thou unto me</I>.<a id="k16a_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; 'I have created many hairs in man, and for every hair I have created a separate groove, so that two should not suck from the same groove, for if two were to suck from the same groove they would impair the sight of a man. I do not confuse one groove with another; and shall I then confuse Iyob with Oyeb? Who hath cleft a channel for the waterflood?<a id="k16a_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; Many drops have I created in the clouds, and for every drop a separate mould, so that two drops should not issue from the same mould, since if two drops issued from the same mould they would wash away the soil, and it would not produce fruit. I do not confuse one drop with another, and shall I confuse Iyob and Oyeb?' (How do we know that the word te'alah [channel] here means a mould? Rabbah b. Shila replied: Because it is written, And he made a trench [te'alah] as great as would contain two measures of seed.)<a id="k16a_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; Or a way for the lightning of the thunder.<a id="k16a_36"><sup>36</sup></a>&nbsp; Many thunderclaps have I created in the clouds, and for each clap a separate path, so that two claps should not travel by the same path, since if two claps travelled by the same path they would devastate the world. I do not confuse one thunderclap with another, and shall I confuse Iyob with Oyeb? Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth, or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?<a id="k16a_37"><sup>37</sup></a>&nbsp; This wild goat is heartless towards her young. When she crouches for
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k16b_1:" [V. Lewysohn, <I>Zoologie des Talmuds</I>, p. 115.]"
,k16b_2:" V. Lewysohn, <i>op. cit</i>., p. 111."
,k16b_3:" Job XXXIV, 3 5."
,k16b_4:" Since it simply says 'without knowledge' but not 'with wickedness'."
,k16b_5:" Ibid. II, II."
,k16b_6:" On which a portrait of each was engraved, and if trouble came upon any one of them, the portrait changed."
,k16b_7:" Gen. VI, 1."
,k16b_8:" Because girls are married earlier than boys."
,k16b_9:" Like his cattle. V. Job XLII, 22."
,k16b_10:" Lit., 'in names"
,k16b_11:" Job XL, 13, 24."
,k16b_12:" Lit., 'horn of pigment'."
,k16b_13:" [In Nehardea.]"
,k16b_14:" A kind of antelope."
,k16b_15:" Palestine. [By this expression R. Jose b. Haninah is meant. V. San. 17b.]"
,k16b_16:" Because it is blackish."
,k16b_17:" This is according to the reading of Rashi, [H. Tosaf., however, reads [H] 'pigment made from saffron', which had a specially beautifying effect on the skin. In this case the name Keren-Happuch will mean, 'the gloss of pigment'."
,k16b_18:" Jer. IV, 30."
,k16b_19:" Whether a daughter is a blessing or not."
,k16b_20:" Gen. XXIV, 1."
,k16b_21:" [A variant rendering: 'He possessed an astrological instrument'. Current texts have 'in his heart' &mdash; Tosef. Kid. V, reads 'in his hand'. V. Bacher, <I>Agada der Tanaiten</I>, I, 200.]"
,k16b_22:" Lit., 'the potentates&nbsp;&hellip; used to attend early at his gate'."
,k16b_23:" This implies that he had broken loose, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k16b_24:" Gen. XXV, 29."
,k16b_25:" I.e., not cleft, like other kinds of pulse."
,k16b_26:" Which have no cleft, but are not perfectly round."
,k16b_27:" Gen. XXV, 29."
,k16b_28:" Deut. XXII, 27."
,k16b_29:" Jer. IV, 31."
,k16b_30:" Ex. XV, 2."
,k16b_31:" Of which it is written, And all flesh gave up the ghost (wa-yigwa'), Gen. VII, 21."
,k16b_32:" Gen. XXV, 17."
,k16b_33:" Ibid. 9."
,k16b_34:" Ibid. XXXV, 29."
,k16b_35:" Lit., 'made him lead'. "
}

txt:
<p>
delivery, she goes up to the top of a mountain so that the young shall fall down and be killed, and I prepare an eagle to catch it in his wings and set it before her, and if he were one second too soon or too late it would be killed.<a id="k16b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; I do not confuse one moment with another, and shall I confuse Iyob with Oyeb? Or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve? This hind has a narrow womb. When she crouches for delivery, I prepare a serpent which bites her at the opening of the womb, and she is delivered of her offspring; and were it one second too soon or too late, she would die.<a id="k16b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; I do not confuse one moment with another, and shall I confuse Iyob with Oyeb? Job speaketh without knowledge, and his words are without wisdom.<a id="k16b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: This teaches that a man is not held responsible for what he says when in distress.<a id="k16b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Now when Job's three friends heard of all this evil which was come upon him, they came every one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; and they made an appointment together to come to bemoan him and to comfort him.<a id="k16b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; What is the meaning of, they made an appointment together? &mdash; Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It teaches that they all entered [the town together] through one gate, although, as it has been taught, each one lived three hundred parasangs away from the other. How did they know [of Job's trouble]? &mdash; Some say that they had crowns,<a id="k16b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and some say that they had had certain trees, the distortion or withering of which was a sign to them. Raba said: This bears out the popular saying: Either a friend like the friends of Job or death.
</p><p>
	And it came to pass, when men began to multiply [larob] on the face of the ground and daughters were born to them.<a id="k16b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Johanan says: [the word larob indicates that] increase [rebiah] came in to the world;<a id="k16b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Resh Lakish says [it indicates that] strife [meribah] came into the world. Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: On your view that it means that increase came into the world, why was not the number of Job's daughters doubled?<a id="k16b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He replied: Though they were not doubled in number,<a id="k16b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; they were doubled in beauty, as it says, He also had seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, and the name of the second Keziah, and the name of the third Keren-Happuch<a id="k16b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Jemimah, because she was like the day [yom]; Keziah, because the emitted a fragrance like cassia [keziah]; Keren-Happuch<a id="k16b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; because &mdash; so it was explained in the academy of R. Shila<a id="k16b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; she had a complexion like the horn of a keresh.<a id="k16b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; This explanation was laughed at in the West,<a id="k16b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; [where it was pointed out that a complexion like] the horn of a keresh would be a blemish.<a id="k16b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [But what it should be], said R. Hisda, [is], like garden crocus of the best kind.<a id="k16b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; (The word <i>puch</i> means pigment, as it is said, <i>Though thou enlargest thine eyes with paint [puch]</i>.)<a id="k16b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A daughter was born to R. Simeon the son of Rabbi, and he felt disappointed. His father said to him: Increase has come to the world. Bar Kappara said to him: Your father has given you an empty consolation. The world cannot do without either males or females. Yet happy is he whose children are males, and alas for him whose children are females. The world cannot do without either a spice-seller or a tanner. Yet happy is he whose occupation is that of a spice-seller, and alas for him whose occupation is that of a tanner. On this point<a id="k16b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; there is a difference between Tannaim. [It is written,] The Lord had blessed Abraham in all things<a id="k16b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [ba-kol].What is meant by 'in all things'? R. Meir said: In the fact that he had no daughter; R. Judah said: In the fact that he had a daughter. Others say that Abraham had a daughter whose name was ba-kol. R. Eliezer the Modiite said that Abraham possessed a power of reading the stars<a id="k16b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; for which he was much sought after by the potentates of East and West.<a id="k16b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Abraham had a precious stone hung round his neck which brought immediate healing to any sick person who looked on it, and when Abraham our father departed from this world, the Holy One, blessed be He, suspended it from the orb of the sun. Abaye said: This bears out the popular saying, As the day advances the illness lightens. Another explanation is that Esau did not break loose so long as he was alive. Another explanation is that Ishmael repented while he was still alive. How do we know that Esau did not break loose while he was alive? Because it says, And Esau came in from the field<a id="k16b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and he was faint.<a id="k16b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; It has been taught [in connection with this] that that was the day on which Abraham our father died, and Jacob our father made a broth of lentils to comfort his father Isaac. Why was it of lentils? &mdash; In the West they say in the name of Rabbah b. Mari: Just as the lentil has no mouth,<a id="k16b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; so the mourner has no mouth [for speech]. Others say: Just as the lentil is round, so mourning comes round to all the denizens of this world. What difference does it make in practice which of the two explanations we adopt? &mdash; The difference arises on the question whether we should comfort with eggs.<a id="k16b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Johanan said: That wicked [Esau] committed five sins on that day. He dishonoured a betrothed maiden, he committed a murder, he denied God, he denied the resurrection of the dead, and he spurned the birthright. [We know that] he dishonoured a betrothed maiden, because it is written here, And Esau came in from the field,<a id="k16b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written in another place [in connection with the betrothed maiden], He found her in the field.<a id="k16b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; [We know that] he committed murder, because it is written here [that he was] faint, and it is written in another place, Woe is me now, for my soul fainteth before the murderers.<a id="k16b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; [We know that] he denied God, because it is written here, What benefit is this to me, and it is written in another place, This is my God and I will make him an habitation.<a id="k16b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>&nbsp; [We know that] he denied the resurrection of the dead because he said, Behold, I am on the way to die: also that he spurned the birthright because it is written, So Esau despised his birthright.
</p><p>
	And whence do we know that Ishmael repented while Abraham was still alive? &mdash; From the discussion which took place between Rabina and R. Hama b. Buzi when they were once sitting before Raba while he was dozing. Said Rabina to R. Hama b. Buzi: Do your people really maintain that wherever the term 'giving up the ghost' [gewi'ah] is used in connection with the death of any person, it implies that that person died righteous? That is so, he replied. But what then of the generation of the Flood?<a id="k16b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; [he asked.] We only make this inference, he replied, if both, 'giving up the ghost' and 'gathering in' are mentioned. But, he rejoined, what of Ishmael, who is said both to have 'given up the ghost' and 'been gathered in'?<a id="k16b_32"><sup>32</sup></a>&nbsp; At this point Raba awoke and heard them. Children, he said, this is what R. Johanan has said: Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father. [We know this] because it says, And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him.<a id="k16b_33"><sup>33</sup></a>&nbsp; But perhaps the text arranges them in the order of their wisdom? &mdash; If that were so, then why in the verse, And Esau and Jacob his sons buried him<a id="k16b_34"><sup>34</sup></a>&nbsp; are they not arranged in the order of their wisdom? What we have to say is that the fact of the text placing Isaac first shows that Ishmael made way<a id="k16b_35"><sup>35</sup></a>&nbsp; for him, and from the fact that he made way for him we infer that he repented in Abraham's lifetime.
</p><p>
	Our Rabbis taught: There were three to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, gave a foretaste
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k18a_1:" Tosaf, asks here, how can we argue from these things to a pit, seeing that they do not injure the soil, and Raba might well allow them to be brought close up while disallowing the pit? The answer given is (a) that they also make the soil on the other side less suitable for a pit; (b) that it may be inconvenient for the man who wants to dig the pit to wait till they have been removed. The same would apply to the next three difficulties raised by the Gemara, which are all addressed to Raba."
,k18a_2:" An upper storey for storing corn, wine and oil. The reason is that the heat from the bakery or the smoke from the workshop is bad for them."
,k18a_3:" Because the smell is bad for the things above, v. <i>infra</i> 25b."
,k18a_4:" Tosef. B.B. I. Notwithstanding that the owner of the upper storey might subsequently decide to turn it into a storehouse. Similarly in the case of the pit, we should think that it may be dug close up to the boundary so long as there is not a pit on the other side."
,k18a_5:" Because all these places can be used for human habitation; hence we do not forbid them on account of a problematical damage which may arise from them."
,k18a_6:" Whereas in the case of the lime, etc., it does not say that it is permitted to keep them there. This is taken by Raba as an indication that a cowshed, as well as similar places that can be used for human habitation (v. Tosaf.), is on a different footing from the lime, etc."
,k18a_7:" To plough round it or to stand the waggon at harvest time. This applies not only to a vine but to any tree, only the passage quoted happens to speak of vines."
,k18a_8:" Similarly the pit should be allowed to be dug close up to the boundary, although it may injure the land on the other side. The argument is again against Raba."
,k18a_9:" Which would prevent the roots from spreading. Hence there is no analogy between this case and that of the pit."
,k18a_10:" Which makes it impossible for the one working in his vineyard to trespass on the field of the other. According to another reading (which seems preferable), we should translate: 'Come and hear: If there is a fence&nbsp;&hellip; on his side.' &mdash; Here too we assume that there is hard rock between."
,k18a_11:" <i>Infra</i> 26a."
,k18a_12:" I.e., that there is hard rock between."
,k18a_13:" If, on the other hand, it was planted there illegally, why should it not be cut down?"
,k18a_14:" V. <i>infra</i>."
,k18a_15:" I.e., if a man planted a tree in his field and then sold half of the field, not containing the tree, and the purchaser dug a pit within 25 cubits of the tree, the original owner is not required to cut it down."
,k18a_16:" <i>Infra</i> 25a. Rashi explains that the bees taste the mustard and then eat their honey to take away the sharpness."
,k18a_17:" The bracketed part is omitted in our printed texts."
,k18a_18:" And you are as liable to damage me as I am you. "
}

txt:
<p>
SALT, LIME, AND FLINT STONES AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL OR PLASTER THEM OVER. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary?<a id="k18a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; even if there is no wall, he still may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL' here tell us? &mdash; It tells us that these things are injurious to a Wall.
</p><p>
	SEEDS, PLOUGH FURROWS AND URINE SHOULD BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALL. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring these things close up to the boundary? &mdash; No; even if there is no wall he may not bring them close up. What then does the mention of the 'WALL here tell us? &mdash; It tells us that moist things are bad for a wall.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: MILL-STONES SHOULD BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE UPPER STONE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE LOWER STONE. The reason is that there is a wall, and if there is no wall he may bring them close up? &mdash; No; even if there is no wall, he may not bring them close up. What then does this tell us? &mdash; It tells us that the shaking [caused by turning the millstones] is bad for the wall.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: AN OVEN SHOULD BE KEPT AWAY THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE FOOT OF THE BASE, WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE TOP OF THE BASE. The reason is that there is a wall, but if there is no wall he may bring it close Up? &mdash; No; even if there is no wall he may not bring it close up. What then does this tell us? &mdash; That the heat [from the oven] is bad for the wall.
</p><p>
	Come and hear: A man may not open a bakery or a dyer's workshop under another person's storehouse<a id="k18a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; nor make a cowshed there.<a id="k18a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason is that there is a storehouse there, but if there is no storehouse, he may, [may he not]?<a id="k18a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; A place where persons can live<a id="k18a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; is different. This is indicated by the Baraitha taught in connection with this Mishnah: 'If the cowshed was there before the granary, he is permitted to keep it.'<a id="k18a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: A man should not plant a tree nearer than four cubits to his neighbour's field. Now it has been taught in reference to this that the four cubits here mentioned are to allow space for the work of the vineyard.<a id="k18a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason then is that there should be space for the work of the vineyard. but were it not for this he would be allowed to plant close up, [would he not,] although the tree has roots which can injure the other's field?<a id="k18a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are dealing here with the case where there is a piece of hard rock between.<a id="k18a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; This is further indicated by the fact that the passage goes on: 'If there is a fence between,<a id="k18a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; each one can plant close up to the fence on his own side.'<a id="k18a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If that is so,<a id="k18a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; what do you make of the next clause: 'If the roots of his tree spread into his neighbour's field, he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so that they should not impede the plough'?<a id="k18a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Now if there is hard rock between, how can the roots get there? &mdash; What the passage means is this: If there is no hard rock between and the roots spread into his neighbour's field, then he may cut them out to a depth of three handbreadths, so as not to impede the plough. Come and hear: A tree [in one man's field] must be kept twenty five cubits from a pit [in another man's field]. The reason is that there is a pit; if there is no pit, he may plant close up? &mdash; No; even if there is no pit he may not plant close up, and this statement teaches us that up to twenty-five cubits the roots are liable to spread and injure the pit. If that is so, what do you make of the next clause: 'If the tree was there already, he is not required to cut it down'? Now if he may not plant close up, how can you apply this statement?<a id="k18a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; As R. papa said in another connection, 'in the case of a purchase;'<a id="k18a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; so here, in the case of a purchase.<a id="k18a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Come and hear: Water in which flax is steeped must be kept at a distance from vegetables. and leeks from onions, and mustard from a beehive.<a id="k18a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason is that there are vegetables there; otherwise he may bring them close up [to the boundary]? &mdash; No; even if there are no vegetables he may not bring them close up, and what this statement teaches us is that these things are bad for one another. If that is so, what of the next clause: R. Jose declares it permissible in the case of mustard; [and it has been taught in reference to this, that the reason is]<a id="k18a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; because the sower can say to his neighbour. 'Just as you can tell me to remove my mustard from your bees, I can tell you to remove your bees from my mustard, because they come and eat the stalks of my mustard plants'?<a id="k18a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k18b_1:" I.e., the man who says this virtually admits that the other had a perfect right to bring his bees close up to the boundary before he sowed his mustard."
,k18b_2:" I.e., after he placed flax &mdash; water or sowed mustard in his field, he sold the other half, and the purchaser sowed vegetables or put a beehive close to the boundary. But otherwise, according to Raba, the mustard and the bees would have to be removed from the boundary."
,k18b_3:" Why should the seller have to remove his bees or mustard, seeing that when he placed them there he was perfectly within his rights?"
,k18b_4:" I.e. the article causing the damage. Hence, since the seller's property is causing the damage he must remove it, although he had a right to place it there at first. Rabbenu <i>Tam</i> here adopts the reading of R. Han. [H] '\"The truth is.\" said Rabina&hellip;' Rabina's answer would then not be in support of Raba, but would involve the abandonment of all the defences made on behalf of Raba above, and an admission that, according to the Rabbis, such articles as lime, tree roots, etc. <I>can</I> be brought close up to the boundary so long as there is at the time nothing to injure on the other side, the only exception being the pit, because the digging of it injures the soil on the other side."
,k18b_5:" And the owner of the former can say to the owner of the latter, 'It is for you to remove them if they are being injured.'"
,k18b_6:" <i>Infra</i> 25b. "
}

txt:
<p>
Now if a man is not allowed to bring these things close up to the boundary, in what conditions could such a remark be made?<a id="k18b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa answered: In the case of a purchaser.<a id="k18b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But if we are speaking of a purchaser, what reason have the Rabbis for prohibiting?<a id="k18b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Also, why does R. Jose permit only in the case of the mustard? Why not the water and the leeks also? &mdash; Rabina replied: The Rabbis hold that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself.<a id="k18b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; We may infer from this that in the opinion of R. Jose it is incumbent on the one who suffers the damage to remove himself, and if that is so, then he should permit flax &mdash; water to be placed close to vegetables?<a id="k18b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The truth is that R. Jose also holds that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself, and he argued with the Rabbis as follows: I grant you are right in the case of the flax water and the vegetables, because the former harms the latter but not vice versa, but the case is different with bees and mustard, because both are harmful to one another. What have the Rabbis to say to this? &mdash; That bees do no harm to mustard; the grains they cannot find, and, if they eat the leaves, they grow again.
</p><p>
	But does R. Jose in fact hold that it is incumbent on the one who inflicts the damage to remove himself? Have we not learnt: 'R. Jose says: Even if the pit was there before the tree, the tree need not be cut down, because the one owner digs in his property and the other plants in his'?<a id="k18b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The truth is that R. Jose holds it to be incumbent on the one who suffers the damage to remove himself, and here he was arguing with the Rabbis on their own premises. thus: 'In my view the one who suffers the damage has to remove himself, and therefore in this case it is not necessary to remove even the flax-water from the vegetables. But on your view that the one who inflicts the damage must remove himself, I grant you are right in the case of the flax-water and the vegetables, because the former injures the latter but not vice-versa. But this does not apply to bees and mustard, where both injure one another.' To which the Rabbis can reply that bees do not injure mustard; the grains
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k19a_1:" A pool in which the dirty linen was soaked two or three days before washing."
,k19a_2:" Because of the splashing."
,k19a_3:" Viz., the clause about the pit. etc., and the clause about the olive refuse, etc., where we have 'or cement', the damage there being too slight to require both plastering and removal to a distance, v. Tosaf. 17a. [H]"
,k19a_4:" From the water in the pit. etc."
,k19a_5:" From the olive refuse, etc."
,k19a_6:" <i>Supra</i> 17b."
,k19a_7:" And we therefore read in the Mishnah, '<I>or</I> plaster'."
,k19a_8:" And we therefore read, '<I>and</I> plaster'."
,k19a_9:" Shab. 47b."
,k19a_10:" All things which give of a steam."
,k19a_11:" Job XXXVI 33; [H] E. V. '<I>noise</I>' is rendered here 'friend', companion'; i.e. one passage elucidates the other."
,k19a_12:" Or 'make rusty'. They are therefore not used at all, whereas purple wool is used sometimes."
,k19a_13:" And therefore does not injure a wall."
,k19a_14:" The Tosefta of R. Oshiah."
,k19a_15:" And this can include all things that give off moisture."
,k19a_16:" And therefore he should specify (moist) sand as well."
,k19a_17:" Since the fuller may abandon it after a time."
,k19a_18:" Because ploughing is only for the sake of sowing."
,k19a_19:" Ploughing the ground under trees was supposed to improve them."
,k19a_20:" Trees and seeds require watering; hence their prohibition could have been inferred from that of moisture."
,k19a_21:" Deut. XI, 21. And therefore seeds are sown and trees planted in fields where there is no irrigation; hence their prohibition had to be mentioned separately. "
}

txt:
<p>
they cannot find, and the leaves grow again.
</p><p>
	NOR A FULLER'S POOL. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabba b. Abbuha: The three handbreadths mentioned here apply only to the soaking pool,<a id="k19a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but the washing pool must be kept four cubits from the wall.<a id="k19a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; We find this also taught [in a Baraitha]: The fuller's pool must be kept four cubits away. But did we not learn, THREE HANDBREADTHS? &mdash; This shows [that the Mishnah must be understood] as R. Nahman has explained. Some put this statement in the form of a contradiction [which is afterwards reconciled,] thus: We learnt A FULLER'S POOL MUST BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS AWAY. But does not a Baraitha say four cubits? &mdash; Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: There is no contradiction. The Mishnah speaks of the soaking pool and the Baraitha of the washing pool. R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia added a gloss to this effect to the Mishnah itself: 'Unless he removes the edge of the soaking pool three handbreadths from the wall.'
</p><p>
	AND PLASTER THE SIDES. The question was raised: Is the proper reading of the Mishnah 'and plaster' or 'or plaster'? &mdash; Obviously 'and plaster' is the proper reading, for if the Mishnah meant to say 'or', then the first two clauses could have been run into one.<a id="k19a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But possibly ['or' is after all the right reading, and the reason why the two clauses are not combined is because] they are not in the same category. the damage in one case arising from moisture<a id="k19a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and in the other from steam?<a id="k19a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Come and hear: R. Judah says. If there is crumbling rock between the two properties, each owner can dig a pit on his own side and each must keep away from the boundary three handbreadths and plaster his pit.<a id="k19a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason is [is it not,] that the soil between is crumbling, but otherwise there is no need to plaster?<a id="k19a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No. This is the rule even if the soil is not crumbling; he still has to plaster.<a id="k19a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; The case of crumbling soil, however, is specified, because otherwise I might have thought that with crumbling soil a greater distance still was required. Now he teaches us [that this is not so].
</p><p>
	OLIVE REFUSE, DUNG, SALT, LIME AND FLINT STONES SHOULD BE KEPT, etc. We have learnt in another place:<a id="k19a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; In what materials may food be kept warm [for the Sabbath] and in what may it not be kept warm? It may not be kept warm in olive refuse or in dung or in salt or in lime or in sand,<a id="k19a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whether moist or dry. Why is it that here flint stones are included in the list and not sand, and there sand is included and not flint stones? &mdash; R. Joseph answered: Because it is not usual to keep food warm in flint stones. Said Abaye to him: And is it usual to keep food warm in woollen fleeces and strips of purple wool? And yet [these are mentioned in] a Baraitha which says: 'Food may be kept warm in woollen fleeces and strips of purple wool and fluff, but these things must not be carried on Sabbath.' No, said Abaye. The truth is that, his neighbour telleth concerning him.<a id="k19a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; The Mishnah here mentions flint stones, and the same rule applies to sand, and there it mentions sand and the same rule applies to flint stones. Said Raba to him: If his neighbour telleth concerning him, should not the Mishnah mention the whole list in one place and only one item in the other, allowing us to understand that the same rule applies to the rest? No, said Raba. The reason why flint stones are not mentioned in connection with Sabbath is because they are liable to crack the pot,<a id="k19a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and the reason why sand is not mentioned here is because while it makes hot things hotter, it makes cold things colder.<a id="k19a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; But R. Oshiah included sand in his Baraitha<a id="k19a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [in the list of things that have to be kept away from the boundary]? &mdash; He was speaking of things which produce moisture. Then why should our Tanna also not include it on the ground of its producing moisture? &mdash; He has mentioned specifically A DITCH.<a id="k19a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Yet in spite of mentioning a ditch he also mentions A FULLER'S POOL?<a id="k19a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both of these required to be specified. For if he had mentioned only a ditch. I should have said that this was because it was a fixture, but I should not have included a fuller's pool which is not a fixture.<a id="k19a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; And if he had mentioned a fuller's pool. I should have said that this was because its waters are stagnant. but I should not have included a ditch [which has running water]. Hence both were necessary.
</p><p>
	SEEDS AND PLOUGH FURROWS ARE KEPT AWAY etc. Cannot seeds be inferred from plough furrows? &mdash; Seeds can be dropped without ploughing. Cannot plough furrows be inferred from seeds?<a id="k19a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Ploughing can be done for trees.<a id="k19a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; Cannot both be inferred from water?<a id="k19a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The Tanna is speaking of Eretz Yisrael, of which it is written, it drinketh water of the rain of heaven.<a id="k19a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; Our Mishnah would imply that seeds
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k19b_1:" Kil. VII, 1."
,k19b_2:" Which shows that the roots do not spread, otherwise they would form <i>kilayim</i> (v. Deut. XXII, 9)."
,k19b_3:" I Kings XXI, 21."
,k19b_4:" Tosef. B.B. 1."
,k19b_5:" This section seems to be an interpolation, having no connection with the subject in hand."
,k19b_6:" If a dead body is in a room between which and an adjoining room there is an opening of a handbreadth square or more, the uncleanness spreads to the adjoining room unless the opening is reduced to the dimension of less than a handbreadth square by means of something which is not useful for any other purpose."
,k19b_7:" Because it soon becomes mouldy through contact with the wall."
,k19b_8:" Hence there would appear to be no point in stating the rule."
,k19b_9:" And such a wafer is not subject to uncleanness like one kneaded with water, wine, or oil."
,k19b_10:" Oh. VI. 2."
,k19b_11:" And yet it is allowed to form a partition."
,k19b_12:" And yet they are allowed to form a partition."
,k19b_13:" I.e., towards the second room, with no dead body in it. "
}

txt:
<p>
spread their roots; how is it then that we have learnt. 'If a man bends over the bough of a vine and plants it in the earth, if there are not three handbreadths of earth over it he must not sow seed on it'<a id="k19b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and to this a gloss was added in a Baraitha 'but he may sow all round it'?<a id="k19b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hagga answered in the name of R. Jose: The reason here [in the case of the wall] is because the seeds break up the soil and bring up loose earth [and not because they spread].
</p><p>
	AND URINE MUST BE REMOVED THREE HANDBREADTHS etc. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: It is permissible for a man to make water on the side of another man's wall, as it is written, And I will cut off from Ahab one that pisseth against the wall and him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel.<a id="k19b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; But did we not learn, URINE MUST BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS FROM THE WALL? &mdash; This refers to slop water. Come and hear: A man should not make water on the side of another man's wall, but should keep three handbreadths away. This is the rule for a wall of brick, but if the wall is of stone. he need keep away only so far as not to do any damage. How much is this? A handbreadth. If the wall is of hard stone, it is permitted.<a id="k19b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Does not this confute the dictum of Rabbah b. Bar Hana? &mdash; It does. But Rabba b. Bar Hana based himself on the Scripture? &mdash; The meaning of the verse is this: 'Even a creature whose way is to piss against a wall I will not leave him. And what is this? A dog.'
</p><p>
	<a id="k19b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>R. Tobi b. Kisna said in the name of Samuel: A thin wafer does not narrow a window space.<a id="k19b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Why a thin one? The same can be said even of a thick one? &mdash; The Rabbi gave an extreme instance. It goes without saying in the case of a thick cake that since it is fit for food the owner does not mentally ignore its existence, [and therefore it does not narrow the window space]; but with a thin one, since it soon becomes uneatable,<a id="k19b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; I might think that he does ignore its existence. Therefore R. Tobi tells us [that even a thin cake does not narrow the window space]. Cannot this be derived from the fact that a wafer is a thing which is capable of becoming [ritually] unclean, and the rule is that anything which is capable of becoming ritually unclean cannot form a partition to prevent the passage of uncleanness?<a id="k19b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We assume the wafer in this case to have been kneaded with fruit juice.<a id="k19b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	An objection [to the rule as stated above] was raised: If a basket full of straw or a jar full of dry figs is placed in a window space, then we decide as follows. If when the basket and the jar are taken away the straw and the figs can stand by themselves, then they form a partition, but if not, they do not.<a id="k19b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Now straw is fit for the food of animals?<a id="k19b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We speak here of straw which has become mouldy. But it is fit for making clay? &mdash; We speak of straw which has thorns in it. But it is fit for fuel? &mdash; We speak of damp straw. Even so it can be used on a big fire? &mdash; A big fire is something uncommon. But figs are fit to eat?<a id="k19b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Samuel replied: We speak of figs which have bred worms. (So Rabbah b. Abbuha also explained: We speak of figs which have bred worms.) How are we to picture this jar? If its mouth faces outwards,<a id="k19b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k20a_1:" I.e., it does not communicate uncleanness from the room where the dead body is to the adjoining room, and therefore it should form a partition."
,k20a_2:" Towards the room where the dead body is. and through its mouth it communicates uncleanness to the adjoining room."
,k20a_3:" Which is liable to communicate uncleanness from its outside as well as inside."
,k20a_4:" I.e., too small to be themselves capable of receiving uncleanness."
,k20a_5:" And so can serve to prevent the uncleanness from penetrating into the next room."
,k20a_6:" Tosef. Oh. XIV."
,k20a_7:" Why then should it be reckoned as narrowing the window space?"
,k20a_8:" Heb. Afrazta. St. John's wort."
,k20a_9:" And since it is liable to be removed at any moment, we should count it as non-existent."
,k20a_10:" In which case it is not injurious to the wall and is not likely to be removed."
,k20a_11:" For staunching the blood or wiping away stains."
,k20a_12:" Because for the purposes of being subject to uncleanness, the minimum size of sacking is four handbreadths by four, not three by three as in the case of cloth."
,k20a_13:" An unknown bird, which obviously must have been very scraggy."
,k20a_14:" A non-Jew is not subject to uncleanness."
,k20a_15:" A child born at eight months is not considered viable and thus is not subject to uncleanness."
,k20a_16:" Lit. 'danger', arising from an undue pressure of milk in her breasts. "
}

txt:
it forms itself a partition, because an earthenware vessel does not communicate uncleanness from its outside?<a id="k20a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We suppose therefore that its mouth is turned inwards.<a id="k20a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Or if you like I can say that its mouth is turned outwards, and here we are speaking of a jar of metal.<a id="k20a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; A [further] objection was raised [against the rule from the following]: Grass which has been plucked up and placed in the window or which has grown there of itself, rags less than three-by-three handbreadths,<a id="k20a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; a limb or flesh hanging from an animal, a bird nesting in the window, a non-Jew sitting in the window or a child born at the eighth month which has been placed there, salt, an earthenware vessel, or a scroll of the Law-all these narrow the window space.<a id="k20a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; On the other hand, snow, hail, ice, hoar frost and water do not narrow the window space.<a id="k20a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Now 'grass' is food for cattle?<a id="k20a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We speak here of poisonous grass.<a id="k20a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Or which has grown there' of itself &mdash; will it not be removed as injurious to the wall?<a id="k20a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rabbah said: We speak here of the wall of a ruin. R. papa said: The rule applies even to the wall of an inhabited place. where the grass springs up from more than three handbreadths distance from the window.<a id="k20a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Rags' are useful for mending clothes? &mdash; We speak of thick rags. These are useful for a blood-letter?<a id="k20a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We speak of sacking. If the Baraitha speaks of sacking, it should say 'less than four by four,'<a id="k20a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; not 'three by three'? &mdash; It means, rough like sacking. 'A limb or flesh hanging from an animal.' Will not the animal go away? &mdash; We suppose it to be tied. But it can be killed [for food]? &mdash; We suppose it to be an unclean animal. In that case it can be sold to a non-Jew? &mdash; We suppose it to be too scraggy. In that case he can cut off the limb and throw it to the dogs? &mdash; As this would cause pain to a living creature, he would not do so. 'A bird-nesting in the window' &mdash; will it not fly away? &mdash; We suppose it to be tied. Then he will kill it [for food]? &mdash; We suppose it to be unclean. Then he will sell it to a non &mdash; Jew? &mdash; We suppose it to be a kallanitha.<a id="k20a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Then he will give it to a child? &mdash; It will scratch. A kallanitha does not scratch? &mdash; We mean, as scraggy as a kallanitha. 'A non-Jew<a id="k20a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; sitting in the window' &mdash; will he not get up and go? &mdash; We suppose him to be tied there. Then some one will come and untie him? &mdash; We suppose him to be leprous. Another leper will come and loosen him? &mdash; We suppose he is a prisoner of the Government. Or 'a child born in the eighth month<a id="k20a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; placed in the window.' Will not its mother come and lift it up? &mdash; We assume it is on the Sabbath, [when she may not lift him], as it was taught: A child born at eight months is on a par with a stone and may not be carried on Sabbath, but his mother may bend over him and give him suck for the sake of her health.<a id="k20a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; 'Salt' is useful? &mdash; We speak of bitter salt. This is useful for preparing skins [for tanning]? &mdash; We suppose there are thorns in it. But since it is injurious to the wall it will be taken away? &mdash; We suppose it to be resting on a piece of earthenware. But this itself will form a partition? &mdash; 
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k20b_1:" Shab. 82a. It was usual to place potsherds between the posts of a window-space at the top and the bottom and to plaster them with mud so as to support the wall."
,k20b_2:" And therefore it cannot be used for the synagogue reading."
,k20b_3:" Because it was forbidden to destroy scrolls of the Law."
,k20b_4:" Because it crumbles."
,k20b_5:" Because it melts."
,k20b_6:" A town in Pontus. The salt of Sodom was thick and hard. [v. Krauss <i>op. cit</i>. I. 499ff.]"
,k20b_7:" In which things may be carried on Sabbath."
,k20b_8:" Lit., 'ass'."
,k20b_9:" According to Rashi, such millstones are small and light, and would not cause any shaking."
,k20b_10:" I.e., if an oven is sold without specification, it is understood that the base is to project a handbreadth."
,k20b_11:" So that the flames should not catch the ceiling."
,k20b_12:" Usually made of stone chippings. clay etc."
,k20b_13:" So that it should not burn the woodwork underneath."
,k20b_14:" Heb. <I>Kirah</I>, [H], a portable stove with accommodation for two pots."
,k20b_15:" V. <i>supra</i> 182."
,k20b_16:" [H] On this term, v. B.M. 60a."
,k20b_17:" Because smoke does not injure wine, v. <i>infra</i>."
,k20b_18:" I.e., before the room above is actually used as a storehouse. v. p. 92 nn. 1, 2."
,k20b_19:" Lit., 'sprinkled' (the floor)."
,k20b_20:" I.e., do these preparations in themselves constitute the room a storehouse?"
,k20b_21:" Presumably for letting in air to keep the corn fresh."
,k20b_22:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 55."
,k20b_23:" This apparently means that a bakery is opened in the <i>exedra</i> under the storeroom, as it is difficult to imagine an <I>exedra</I> being actually built under an upper storey. The whole clause is suspect, and is omitted in some editions. V. BaH and R. Gershom; H.M. 255."
,k20b_24:" Lit., an upperstorey on top of his house'. Such places were normally used for storerooms. [Maimonides (<I>Yad. Shekenim</I>, IX, 13) renders: 'If the owner of the bakery made an extra floor within his shop' so that the upper part could be used as a storeroom.]"
,k20b_25:" Does this count as a storeroom, or do we call a storeroom only one where corn, wine and oil are kept?"
,k20b_26:" So Rashi; but according to Tosaf. (18a, s. v. [H] the heat is referred to, not the smoke."
,k20b_27:" Corn cut before it has grown to any height and used for fodder."
,k20b_28:" Because it emits an evil smell which injures the wine stored above."
,k20b_29:" This is one among many instances of the preference shown by the Rabbis to industry over trade."
,k20b_30:" This would naturally refer to the noise made by children coming to buy from the shop. and so would seem to contradict the first clause. Hence the question of the Gemara which immediately follows."
,k20b_31:" V. preceding note. "
}

txt:
We speak of a piece which has no size to speak of, [and may even be carried on Sabbath]. as we have learnt: A piece of earthenware [which must not be carried on Sabbath] must be big enough to put between one window post and another.<a id="k20b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; 'An earthenware vessel' is it not useful? &mdash; We suppose it to be dirty. It is still useful for a blood-letter [to collect the blood]? &mdash; We suppose it has a hole in it. 'A scroll of the Law' can serve for reading the Law? &mdash; We suppose the scroll to be worn out.<a id="k20b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Then it ought to be stored away?<a id="k20b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; That is the place where it is stored away.
</p><p>
	Rab said: A partition may be made with anything save salt<a id="k20b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and grease.<a id="k20b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said: Even with salt. R. papa said: There is no conflict between them [Rab and Samuel] &mdash; One speaks of salt of Sodom and the other of salt of Istria.<a id="k20b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Seeing. however, that Rabbah has said that a man may set up two piles of salt and place a beam over them [to make an alley-way],<a id="k20b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; because the salt keeps the beam in place and the beam keeps the salt in place, even the salt of Istria may be used for this purpose, and still there is no conflict between Rab and Samuel, because one speaks of the case where there is a beam and the other of the case where there is not.
</p><p>
	MILL-STONES SHOULD BE KEPT AT A DISTANCE OF THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE UPPER STONE WHICH MEANS FOUR FROM THE LOWER STONE. What is the reason for this? Because of the shaking. But was it not taught: Millstones fixed on a base<a id="k20b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; must be kept three handbreadths from the casing which means four from the sieve. Now what shaking is there there?<a id="k20b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We must say then that the reason is because of the noise.
</p><p>
	AN OVEN MUST BE KEPT THREE HANDBREADTHS RECKONING FROM THE FOOT OF THE BASE ETC. Abaye said: We learn from this that the base of an oven projects [normally] one handbreadth. This has a practical bearing on questions of sale.<a id="k20b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. AN OVEN SHOULD NOT BE FIXED IN A ROOM UNLESS THERE IS ABOVE IT AN EMPTY SPACE OF AT LEAST FOUR CUBITS.<a id="k20b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; IF IT IS FIXED IN AN UPPER CHAMBER. THERE MUST BE UNDER IT PAVED FLOORING<a id="k20b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS THICK.<a id="k20b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; FOR A SMALL STOVE<a id="k20b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; ONE HANDBREADTH IS ENOUGH. IF IN SPITE OF THESE PRECAUTIONS DAMAGE IS CAUSED, THE OWNER OF THE OVEN MUST PAY FOR THE DAMAGE. R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAID THAT ALL THESE LIMITATIONS WERE ONLY LAID DOWN WITH THE IDEA THAT IF AFTER OBSERVING THEM HE STILL CAUSES DAMAGE, HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY. A MAN SHOULD NOT OPEN A BAKERY OR A DYER'S WORKSHOP UNDER HIS NEIGHBOUR'S STOREHOUSE,<a id="k20b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; NOR A COWSHED. IN POINT OF FACT<a id="k20b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; THE RABBIS PERMITTED [A BAKERY OR DYER'S WORKSHOP TO BE OPENED] UNDER WINE,<a id="k20b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; BUT NOT A COWSHED.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [THERE MUST BE UNDER IT PAVED FLOORING AT LEAST THREE HANDBREADTHS etc.] But has it not been taught that there must be four handbreadths under an [ordinary] oven and three under a small oven? &mdash; Said Abaye: This refers to the ovens of bakers, for our large oven is like their small one.
</p><p>
	A MAN SHOULD NOT OPEN A BAKERY etc. A Tanna taught: If the cowshed is there before the storehouse,<a id="k20b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; it may be opened.
</p><p>
	Abaye raised the following questions: If [the owner of the upper room] has cleared out and swept<a id="k20b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; [the room] in preparation for a storehouse [but has not yet placed any produce there], what is the ruling?<a id="k20b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; If he has opened out a number of windows<a id="k20b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; there, what is the ruling? [If there is an <i>exedra</i><a id="k20b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; under the storehouse. what is the ruling?]<a id="k20b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; If he builds a room on the roof,<a id="k20b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the ruling? &mdash; These questions must stand over. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua asked: If he stores there figs and pomegranates.<a id="k20b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; what is the ruling? &mdash; This question also must stand over. IN POINT OF FACT THE RABBIS PERMITTED IN THE CASE OF WINE etc. A Tanna taught: They declared it permissible in the case of wine because [the smoke]<a id="k20b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; improves it, while they forbade a cowshed because [the smell] spoils it. R. Joseph said: Our wine is adversely affected even by the smoke of a lamp. R. Shesheth said: Cropped corn<a id="k20b_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; is on the same footing as a cowshed.<a id="k20b_28"><sup>28</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN DESIRES TO OPEN A SHOP IN A COURTYARD, HIS NEIGHBOUR MAY PRESENT HIM ON THE GROUND THAT HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SLEEP THROUGH THE NOISE OF PEOPLE COMING AND GOING. A MAN, HOWEVER, MAY MAKE ARTICLES IN THE COURTYARD TO TAKE OUT AND SELL IN THE MARKET, AND HIS NEIGHBOUR CANNOT PREVENT HIM ON THE GROUND THAT HE CANNOT SLEEP FROM THE NOISE OF THE HAMMER OR OF THE MILL-STONES<a id="k20b_29"><sup>29</sup></a>&nbsp; OR OF THE CHILDREN.<a id="k20b_30"><sup>30</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Why is the rule in the second case not the same as in the first?<a id="k20b_31"><sup>31</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: The second clause must refer to [a man in] another courtyard. Said Raba to him: If that is so, the Mishnah should say. 'In another courtyard it is permissible'? &mdash; No, said Raba:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k22a_1:" People who had come into Babylon from other towns."
,k22a_2:" So that no one else should sell till he has disposed of his stock."
,k22a_3:" To see whether the wine is good; i.e. test his scholarship."
,k22a_4:" I.e., is it regarded as being still a basket or as excrement. "
,k22a_5:" As if to say that he would do better to go further."
,k22a_6:" Amos II, 1."
,k22a_7:" By an untimely death."
,k22a_8:" For the insult offered to me."
,k22a_9:" Where the teaching is so much superior."
,k22a_10:" Heb. kallah, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k22a_11:" According to another interpretation given by Rashi: 'Because they had not been present at the meeting when R. Nahman was appointed the official preacher.'"
,k22a_12:" Name of the last chapter of Tractate Bekhoroth."
,k22a_13:" Lit., 'He said to them: Thus said Raba and thus said Raba.'"
,k22a_14:" According to Tosaf., each of these Rabbis lamented the fact that through him punishment had befallen R. Adda b. Abba, because of the dictum (Shab. 249). 'Whoever is the cause of punishment befalling his fellow man is not permitted within the inner circle of the Holy One, blessed be He.'"
,k22a_15:" The meaning of this is discussed in the Gemara which follows."
,k22a_16:" The reason is given in the Gemara, <i>infra</i>."
,k22a_17:" The point of this question apparently is that the first wall also ought to have been four cubits away. "
}

txt:
<p>
that 'the jealousy of scribes increaseth wisdom'.
</p><p>
	R. Nahman b. Isaac said: R. Huna the son of R. Joshuah also agrees that itinerant spice-sellers cannot prevent one another from going to any given town, because, as a Master has stated, Ezra made a rule for Israel that spice-sellers should go about from town to town so that the daughters of Israel should be able to obtain finery. This, however, only means that they are at liberty to go from house to house [in the strange town], but not to settle there. If, however, the seller is a student, he may settle also, a precedent having been set by Raba in allowing R. Josiah and R. Obadiah to settle, in despite of the rule. The reason he gave was that, as they were Rabbis, they would be disturbed in their studies [if they had to return to their own town].
</p><p>
	Certain basket-sellers brought baskets to Babylon [to sell]. The townspeople came and stopped them, so they appealed to Rabina. He said, 'They have come from outside and they can sell to the people from outside.'<a id="k22a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; This restriction, however, applied only to the market day, but not to other days; and even on the market day only for selling in the market, but not for going round to the houses.
</p><p>
	Certain wool-sellers brought wool to Pum Nahara. The townspeople tried to stop them from selling it. They appealed to Rab Kahana, who said, 'They have a perfect right to stop you.' They said, 'We have money owing to us here.' 'If so.' he replied. 'you can go and sell enough to keep you till you collect your debts, and then you must go.'
</p><p>
	R. Dimi from Nehardea brought a load of figs in a boat. The Exilarch said to Raba, 'Go and see if he is a scholar, and if so, reserve the market for him.'<a id="k22a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; So Raba said to R. Adda b. Abba, 'Go and smell his jar.'<a id="k22a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; The latter accordingly went out and put to him the following question: 'If an elephant swallows an osier basket and passes it out with its excrement, is it still subject to uncleanness?'<a id="k22a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; He could not give an answer. 'Are you Raba?' he asked R. Adda. The latter tapped him on his shoe<a id="k22a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and said, 'Between me and Raba there is a great difference, but at any rate I can be your teacher, and so Raba is the teacher of your teacher.' They did not reserve the market for him, and so his figs were a dead loss. He appealed to R. Joseph. saying: 'See how they have treated me.' He said to him, 'He who did not delay to avenge the wrong done to the king of Edom will not delay to avenge the wrong done to you. as it is written, Thus saith the Lord, For three transgressions of Moab, yea for four I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime.'<a id="k22a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Shortly afterwards R. Adda b. Abba died. R. Joseph said: It is through me that he has been punished.<a id="k22a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; because I cursed him. R. Dimi from Nehardea said: It is through me that he has been punished. because he made me lose my figs. Abaye said: It is through me<a id="k22a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; that he has been punished. because he used to say to the students, 'Instead of gnawing bones in the school of Abaye. why do you not eat fat meat in the school of Raba?'<a id="k22a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: It is through me that he has been punished, because when he went to the butcher's to buy meat he used to say to the butchers, 'Serve me before the servant of Raba, because I am above him.' R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It is through me that he has been punished. How was this? R. Nahman b. Isaac was the regular preacher [on Sabbaths]. Every time before he went to give his discourse,<a id="k22a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; he used to run over it with R. Adda b. Abba; and only then would he attend the Kallah. One day R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua got hold of R. Adda b. Abba because they had not been present at the concluding discourse [of Raba on the tractate Bekhoroth],<a id="k22a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and said to him: Tell us how Raba discussed the law of the 'Tithing of cattle.'<a id="k22a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; He then gave them a full account of Raba's discourse.<a id="k22a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Meanwhile dusk had set in and R. Nahman b. Isaac was still waiting for R. Adda b. Abba. The Rabbis said to him: Come, for it is late; why do you still sit, Sir? He said: I am waiting for the bier of R. Adda b. Abba. Soon after the report came that R. Adda b. Abba was dead. The most likely opinion is that R. Nahman b. Isaac was the cause of his punishment.<a id="k22a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. IF A MAN HAS A WALL RUNNING ALONGSIDE HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL, HE SHOULD NOT BRING ANOTHER WALL ALONGSIDE UNLESS HE KEEPS IT [AT LEAST] FOUR CUBITS AWAY.<a id="k22a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THERE ARE WINDOWS [IN THE NEIGHBOUR'S WALL]. HE MUST LEAVE A CLEAR SPACE OF FOUR CUBITS WHETHER ABOVE OR BELOW OR OPPOSITE.<a id="k22a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. [HE SHOULD NOT BRING ANOTHER WALL etc.] How came the first wall to be close up?<a id="k22a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Rab Judah said: The Mishnah must be understood as follows:
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k22b_1:" Tosaf. points out that this would imply that according to Raba the second wall must be four cubits away only if the first was also, which is incorrect."
,k22b_2:" By strengthening the foundations."
,k22b_3:" Because there is no treading from the inside.'"
,k22b_4:" Where the ground has already been well trodden."
,k22b_5:" Where the ground still requires treading; hence a space must be left between the walls."
,k22b_6:" And therefore if there are no windows he need not leave a space."
,k22b_7:" This question has reference to the Baraitha just mentioned, where no exact measurements are mentioned."
,k22b_8:" If the second wall is not considerably higher than the first."
,k22b_9:" So that he cannot stand or sit on it."
,k22b_10:" And therefore a small space is sufficient to let in light."
,k22b_11:" And therefore a space of full four cubits is required."
,k22b_12:" In case he wants to climb up to the gutter to clean it. V. next Mishnah. [This interpretation follows Rashi; for other explanations, v. H.M. Tur and Beth Joseph 154.]"
,k22b_13:" Which projects from the roof over the neighbouring courtyard."
,k22b_14:" V. p. 113. n. 7."
,k22b_15:" Whereas here the man may not place the ladder where he likes in his own property. V. <i>infra</i> 25b, and <i>supra</i> 17b."
,k22b_16:" Lit., 'for his arrows', i.e., for damage resulting from an action which is in itself legitimate. "
}

txt:
<p>
If a man wants to build a wall alongside of his neighbour's wall, he must not do so unless he keeps it [at least] four cubits away. Raba strongly objected to this, on the ground that it says. IF A MAN [ALREADY] HAS A WALL RUNNING ALONGSIDE OF HIS NEIGHBOUR'S WALL. No, said Raba: what it means is this: If a man had a wall running alongside of his neighbour's wall at a distance of four cubits and it falls down, he must not bring another wall alongside unless he keeps it four cubits away,<a id="k22b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; the reason being that the treading of the earth between [by foot passengers] is good for the walls [on both sides].<a id="k22b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rab said: This Mishnah applies only to the wall of a vegetable garden,<a id="k22b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; but [if] the wall [is that] of a courtyard, he may bring [his wall] as close to it as he likes. R. Oshiah, however, said: It makes no difference whether it is a vegetable garden or a courtyard. he must not bring his wall closer to it than four cubits. R. Jose b. Hanina says: There is no conflict between Rab and R. Oshiah; the former speaks of [a courtyard in] an old town<a id="k22b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the latter of [one in] a new one.<a id="k22b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: IF THERE ARE WINDOWS [IN THE NEIGHBOUR'S WALL] HE MUST LEAVE A CLEAR SPACE OF FOUR CUBITS, WHETHER ABOVE OR BELOW OR OPPOSITE; and in a Baraitha commenting on this it is stated that a space must be left 'above' so that he should not be able to peep into the other one's room, and 'below' so that he should not stand on tiptoe and look in, and opposite' so that he should not take away his light. The reason then [why the second wall must be kept away from the first] is that he should not take away his light. and not, as you say, that the ground between should be trodden?<a id="k22b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Here [in the Baraitha] we are dealing with a wall which runs at right angles to the first wall.
</p><p>
	How far [must such a wall be kept away so as not to take away the other's light]?<a id="k22b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Yeba the father-in-law of Ashian b. Nidbak said in the name of Rab: The breadth of a window. But cannot he still look through?<a id="k22b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Zebid says: We presume that he makes the top of the wall slope.<a id="k22b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; But does not our Mishnah say. [at least] four cubits? &mdash; There is no contradiction: in the one case the wall running at right angles is on one side [only of the window].<a id="k22b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; in the other [there are walls at right angles] on both sides [of the window].<a id="k22b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: The wall must be kept away from the [neighbour's] roof-gutter four cubits, so as to allow room for setting a ladder.<a id="k22b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; The reason, it appears, is that there may be room for a ladder, but not that there may be room for treading? &mdash; Here we are dealing with an overhanging gutter,<a id="k22b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; where there is no need to make allowance for treading, because there is room to walk under the gutter.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A LADDER MUST BE KEPT AWAY FROM A PIGEON COTE FOUR CUBITS SO THAT A WEASEL SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SPRING [FROM THE LADDER ON TO THE COTE]. THE WALL MUST BE KEPT FOUR CUBITS FROM THE [NEIGHBOUR'S] ROOF-GUTTER SO AS TO ALLOW ROOM FOR SETTING A LADDER.<a id="k22b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. Shall I say that the Mishnah does not concur with R. Jose. who has laid down that 'the one may dig [a pit where he likes] in his property. and the other may plant [a tree where he likes] in his property'?<a id="k22b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; You may say that even R. Jose would concur with the Mishnah here. For R. Ashi has told us that 'when we were with R. Kahana, he said to us that R. Jose admitted that a man was responsible for the damage of which he is the cause.'<a id="k22b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; Here too, it may happen that while the man is setting the ladder the weasel is sitting in a hole close by and jumps on to it. But here he is merely the indirect cause? Said R. Tobi bar Mattanah: This is equivalent to saying that it is prohibited to cause damage indirectly, [even where the damage, if caused, need not be paid for].
</p><p>
	R. Joseph had some small date trees
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k23a_1:" Either (a) by allowing them to do so for three years without protest. or (b) by selling them the ground under the trees. V. Tosaf."
,k23a_2:" Cf. <i>infra</i> p. 116"
,k23a_3:" Which are both irritating and offensive."
,k23a_4:" So that the pigeons should not eat the seeds of the vegetable gardens, or those spread on the roofs (Tosaf.)."
,k23a_5:" I.e. one <I>Beth-Kor</I> on each side. A <I>Beth. Kor</I> (space for the sowing of a <I>kor</I>) = 7500 square cubits."
,k23a_6:" About 105 square cubits."
,k23a_7:" About four miles."
,k23a_8:" For fear that he may snare pigeons belonging to others. V. B.K. 79b."
,k23a_9:" This question has reference to the rule about snares, not to the rule about dovecotes."
,k23a_10:" So that the birds can fly from one to another."
,k23a_11:" And not because of the pigeons of a town."
,k23a_12:" V. B.K. Mishnah 37b. (Sonc. ed.)."
,k23a_13:" I.e., if a man inherits a property from his father and another man claims it, if it is proved that the father occupied it for three years, the Beth-Din can plead on behalf of the heir that the father had originally bought it from the man, whereas they would not do so for the father, if he did not put forward the plea on his own account. Similarly with a man who has bought a field which is then claimed by a third party."
,k23a_14:" Because, if the father has occupied it three years. the Beth-Din assume this without his pleading it. V. <i>infra</i> 410."
,k23a_15:" <i>Infra</i> 60a. Which is exactly similar to the rule laid down here, that the purchaser has a right to retain the dovecotes. Why then should both statements be made?"
,k23a_16:" According to Tosaf., through the 'seven headmen of the town', the boni viri, at a public meeting."
,k23a_17:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 115. n. 1. But a pigeon cote is in a different category. "
}

txt:
<p>
under which cuppers used to sit [and let blood], and ravens used to collect to suck up the blood, and they used to fly on to the date trees and damage them. So R. Joseph said to the cuppers. 'Take away your croakers from here.' Said Abaye to him, 'But they are only the indirect cause?' &mdash; He replied: 'R. Tobi bar Mattanah has expressly said: This is equivalent to saying that it is prohibited to cause damage indirectly.' But [R. Joseph] had given them a right [to let blood under the trees]?<a id="k23a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; R. Nahman has said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha; There is no legal title to things causing damage.<a id="k23a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; But are we not told in a gloss on this statement that R. Mari says it refers [for instance] to smoke, and R. Zebid to a privy?<a id="k23a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said R. Joseph to him, 'I am very sensitive, and these ravens are as offensive to me as smoke or a privy.'
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A PIGEON COTE MUST BE KEPT FIFTY CUBITS FROM A TOWN.<a id="k23a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; A MAN SHOULD NOT PUT UP A PIGEON COTE ON HIS OWN ESTATE UNLESS THERE IS A CLEAR SPACE OF FIFTY CUBITS ALL ROUND. R. JUDAH SAYS, THE SPACE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE SOWING OF FOUR <I>KOR</I>,<a id="k23a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; WHICH IS AS MUCH AS A BIRD FLIES AT A TIME. IF, HOWEVER, HE BUYS IT [FROM ANOTHER] WITH ONLY THE SPACE FOR SOWING A QUARTER OF A <I>KAB</I> ROUND IT,<a id="k23a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; HE HAS A RIGHT TO KEEP IT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. No more than fifty cubits? &mdash; Does not this contradict the following: 'Snares may be spread for pigeons only at a distance of thirty <i>ris</i><a id="k23a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; from a Yishub [town or village]'?<a id="k23a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Abaye replied: pigeons cover much ground. but they eat their fill within fifty cubits of their starting point. And do they fly no further than thirty <i>ris</i>?<a id="k23a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Has it not been taught: 'Where there are towns and villages. nets should not be spread even within a hundred miles'? &mdash; R. Joseph said: This means, where there is a succession of vineyards;<a id="k23a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba said: It means, where there is a succession of pigeon cotes.<a id="k23a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Then should not the prohibition be laid down because of the pigeon cotes themselves?<a id="k23a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; If you like I can answer that they [the intermediate cotes] belong to [the man who sets the snares] himself; and if you like that they belong to heathens,<a id="k23a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; and if you like that they are no-one's property.
</p><p>
	R. JUDAH SAYS THE SPACE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE SOWING OF FOUR&hellip; HE HAS A RIGHT etc. R. papa [or, according to others, R. Zebid] said: This implies that the <i>Beth Din</i> may plead the cause<a id="k23a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; of an heir and may plead the cause of a purchaser. But we have already learnt the rule about the heir in the following statement: 'He who claims [a property] qua heir has no need to plead [that his father bought the property]'?<a id="k23a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The point of R. Zebid's statement lies in the reference to the purchaser. But in regard to the purchaser also we have learnt that 'if a man buys a courtyard in which are beams and balconies projecting over the main thoroughfare, he has a legal right to retain them'?<a id="k23a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Both statements are necessary. For if I had only the statement regarding the main thoroughfare to go by, I should say that the reason there [for allowing the right to stand] is because the courtyard had been originally drawn back from the main thoroughfare [to allow room for the projection], or that the public had waived its right<a id="k23a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; [to have them removed] in his favour, but this reason would not apply here [to the pigeon cote]. And if I had only the statement here, I would say that the reason is because, having only an individual to deal with, the owner obtained his consent, or that the other waived his right in his favour, but in the case of the public, who is there to consent and who is there to allow? Hence both statements are required.
</p><p>
	HE HAS A RIGHT TO KEEP IT. But has not R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha that there is no legal title to things which cause damage? &mdash; R. Mari replied that this applies to such a thing as smoke; R. Zebid, to such a thing as a privy.<a id="k23a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k23b_1:" I.e., if a thing may conceivably belong to either of two categories, one of which is the more numerous, but the other in closer proximity; v. next note."
,k23b_2:" The plea of 'majority' is derived from the words [H] (Ex. XXIII, 2). which the Rabbis render (for purposes of <I>halachah</I>), 'Incline judgment after a majority.' i.e., according to the answer to the question. To what class do most things like this belong? The plea of 'nearness' is derived from the verse, <I>And it shall come to pass that the city which is nearest</I> etc. (Deut. XXI. 3)' i.e., we decide according to the answer to the question. Where are the nearest examples of things of this kind? (in this case, potential murderers)."
,k23b_3:" So that the murderer would not naturally come to the spot from another town."
,k23b_4:" Hence we cannot assume that there is no larger cote in the neighbourhood. and therefore the answer to the previous objection will not stand."
,k23b_5:" Hence if it is found beyond 50 cubits it must have flown and may have come from 'the biggest anywhere', and therefore belongs to the finder."
,k23b_6:" According to Rashi, because his question was regarded as foolish, but according to Tosaf., because he ventured to call in question the statement of the Rabbis that a young bird can hop <I>only</I> fifty cubits."
,k23b_7:" And therefore belongs to the finder. "
}

txt:
<p>
<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A YOUNG PIGEON WHICH IS FOUND ON THE GROUND WITHIN FIFTY CUBITS FROM A COTE BELONGS TO THE OWNER OF THE COTE; IF FOUND BEYOND FIFTY CUBITS FROM THE COTE, IT BELONGS TO THE FINDER. IF IT IS FOUND BETWEEN TWO COTES IT BELONGS TO THE ONE TO WHOSE COTE IT IS NEARER. IF IT IS EXACTLY MIDWAY, THEY MUST SHARE IT.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. R. Hanina says: If a case can be decided one way on the ground of 'majority' and another way on the ground of 'nearness',<a id="k23b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; we decide on the ground of 'majority'. And although the plea of 'nearness' equally with the plea of 'majority' derives its warrant from the Scripture,<a id="k23b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; yet the plea of 'majority' carries greater weight.
</p><p>
	R. Zera questioned this. Scripture tells us, <I>And it shall come to pass that the city nearest unto the slain man</I>&nbsp;&hellip; [<I>shall bring a heifer</I>]. that is to say, even though there are other towns [in the vicinity] with a larger population? &mdash; We assume that there are none. But [if 'majority' is the decisive factor] why not take the biggest town anywhere? &mdash; Scripture speaks of a town surrounded by mountains.<a id="k23b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	We learnt: A YOUNG PIGEON WHICH IS FOUND ON THE GROUND WITHIN FIFTY CUBITS OF A COTE BELONGS TO THE OWNER OF THE COTE; and this even though there may be a bigger cote in the neighbourhood? We assume that there is not. If that is so, then what of the next clause: IF FOUND BEYOND FIFTY CUBITS FROM THE COTE, IT BELONGS TO THE FINDER? Now if there are no other cotes in the neighbourhood, there can be no question that the bird comes from this one?<a id="k23b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Our Mishnah speaks [in the first clause] of a bird which can only hop. since Mar 'Ukba has laid down that a bird which can only hop does not go further than fifty cubits.<a id="k23b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Jeremiah raised the question: If one foot is within fifty cubits and the other beyond. how do we decide? It was for this that they turned R. Jeremiah out of the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>.<a id="k23b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Come and hear: IF IT IS FOUND BETWEEN TWO COTES. IT BELONGS TO THE OWNER TO WHOSE COTE IT IS NEARER: and this though one may have more birds than the other? &mdash; We are dealing here with the case where both are equal. But [if it is more than fifty cubits from each] let us say that it comes from the biggest anywhere?<a id="k23b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; We are dealing here
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k25a_1:" Because of the bad smell."
,k25a_2:" V. <i>supra</i> 18a."
,k25a_3:" Lit., 'how does R. Akiba say.'"
,k25a_4:" An angel so called."
,k25a_5:" Job XXXIX. 26."
,k25a_6:" Divine Presence, v. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a>"
,k25a_7:" The 'Members of the Great Assembly', who handed down the Book of Nehemiah with this verse in it."
,k25a_8:" Nehem. IX. 6. This would show that the sun and moon in the east bow down to the <I>Shechinah</I> which is in the west."
,k25a_9:" I.e., the verse refers to the sun and moon at their setting and not at their rising, and hence the <I>Shechinah</I> is in the east."
,k25a_10:" Nehem. IX, 6."
,k25a_11:" Job XXXVIII. 35."
,k25a_12:" [Cf. Ahelson, <I>The Immanence of God in Rabbinic Literature</I>, p. 208.]"
,k25a_13:" Zech. II, 7."
,k25a_14:" R. Shesheth was blind."
,k25a_15:" Jewish sectaries, here probably a sect of Jewish fire-worshippers."
,k25a_16:" [H], from a Persian word meaning 'evening'. V. Levy, <I>Worterbuck</I>."
,k25a_17:" [H]"
,k25a_18:" [H]"
,k25a_19:" Deut. XXXII, 2."
,k25a_20:" [H] The West is called 'back' as opposed to the East, the Hebrew word for which (<I>kedem</I>) also means 'front'."
,k25a_21:" [H]"
,k25a_22:" Deut. XXXII, 2."
,k25a_23:" According to Rashi, because it dries up the produce and causes scarcity, so that corn has to be bought with money."
,k25a_24:" Isa. XLVI, 6, <I>tizzal</I>, being taken from root <I>zalal</I> meaning both 'to flow' and 'to be cheap'."
,k25a_25:" [H]"
,k25a_26:" Deut. XXXII, 2."
,k25a_27:" Lit., 'he-goat'. It was anciently believed that hegoats were possessed with demons. Cf. <I>Zohar</I>, on Lev. XVII."
,k25a_28:" Deut. XXXII, 2. "
}

txt:
<p>
Because it over-manures it.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. CARRION, GRAVES, AND TANYARDS MUST BE KEPT FIFTY CUBITS FROM A TOWN.<a id="k25a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; A TANYARD MUST ONLY BE PLACED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE TOWN. R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, SAYS IT MAY BE PLACED ON ANY SIDE EXCEPT THE WEST, PROVIDING IT IS KEPT FIFTY CUBITS AWAY. FLAXWATER<a id="k25a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; MUST BE KEPT AWAY FROM VEGETABLES AND LEEKS FROM ONIONS AND MUSTARD PLANTS FROM A BEEHIVE. R. JOSE. HOWEVER, DECLARES IT PERMISSIBLE [TO COME NEARER] IN THE CASE OF MUSTARD.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. The question was asked: How are we to understand R. Akiba's ruling?<a id="k25a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [Does he mean to say that] IT [a tanyard] MAY BE PLACED ON ANY SIDE, namely, be set close to the city, EXCEPT ON THE WEST, where also it may be set, but only at a distance of fifty cubits? Or IT MAY BE PLACED ON ANY SIDE&nbsp;&hellip; PROVIDING IT IS KEPT FIFTY CUBITS AWAY, EXCEPT ON THE WEST, where it must not be placed at all? &mdash; Come and hear: R. Akiba says: [A tanyard] may be set on any side at a distance of fifty cubits, save on the west side, where it must not be placed at all, because it is a constant abode.
</p><p>
	Said Raba to R. Nahman: A constant abode of what? Shall I say of winds? How can this be, seeing that R. Hanan b. Abba has said in the name of Rab: Four winds blow every day and the north wind with all of them, for without this the world could not endure a moment. The south wind is the most violent, and were it not that the Son of the Hawk<a id="k25a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; stays it with his wings it would destroy the world, as it says, Doth the hawk soar by the wisdom, and stretch her wings towards the south?<a id="k25a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No; what it means is that it is the constant abode of the <I>Shechinah</I>.<a id="k25a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; For so said Joshua b. Levi: Let us be grateful to our ancestors<a id="k25a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; for showing us the place of prayer, as it is written, And the host of heaven worshippeth thee.<a id="k25a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Aha bar Jacob strongly demurred to this [interpretation]. Perhaps, he said, [the sun and moon bow down to the east], like a servant who has received a gratuity from his master and retires backwards, bowing as he goes.<a id="k25a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; This [indeed] is a difficulty. R. Oshaia expressed the opinion that the <I>Shechinah</I> is in every place. For R. Oshaia said: What is the meaning of the verse, <I>Thou art the Lord, even thou alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens</I>, etc.?<a id="k25a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Thy messengers are not like the messengers of flesh and blood. Messengers of flesh and blood report themselves [after performing their office] to the place from which they have been sent, but thy messengers report themselves to the place to which they are sent, as it says. Canst <I>thou send forth lightnings that they may go and say to thee</I>, here we are.<a id="k25a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; It does not say, 'that they may <I>come</I> and say,' but '<I>that they may go and say</I>,' which shows that the <I>Shechinah</I> is in all places. R. Ishmael also held that the <i>Shechinah</i> is in all places, since R. Ishmael taught: From where do we know that the <i>Shechinah</i> is in all places?<a id="k25a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Because it says, <I>And behold, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him</I>.<a id="k25a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; It does not say, 'went out <I>after</I> him,' but went out to meet him.' This shows that the <I>Shechinah</I> is in all places. R. Shesheth also held that the <I>Shechinah</I> is in all places, because [when desiring to pray] he used to say to his attendant:<a id="k25a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Set me facing any way except the east. And this was not because the <I>Shechinah</I> is not there, but because the <I>Minim</I><a id="k25a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; prescribe turning to the east. R. Abbahu, however, said that the <I>Shechinah</I> is in the west; for so said R. Abbahu: What is the meaning of '<I>Uryah</I>'?<a id="k25a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; It is equivalent to <I>avir Yah</I><a id="k25a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [air of God].
</p><p>
	R. Judah said: What is the meaning of the verse, <I>My doctrine shall drop</I> [ya'arof]<a id="k25a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>as the rain</I>?<a id="k25a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; This refers to the west wind which comes from the back [<I>'oref</I>]<a id="k25a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; of the world. <I>My speech shall distil</I> [<I>tizzal</I>]<a id="k25a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>as the dew</I>:<a id="k25a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; this is the north wind which makes gold flow,<a id="k25a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>&nbsp; and so it says: <I>Who lavish</I> [ha-zalim] <I>gold from the purse</I>.<a id="k25a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>As the small rain</I> [<I>se'irim</I>]<a id="k25a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>upon the tender grass</I>:<a id="k25a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; this is the east wind which rages through the world like a demon [<I>sa'ir</I>].<a id="k25a_27"><sup>27</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>And as showers upon the herb</I>:<a id="k25a_28"><sup>28</sup></a>&nbsp; this is the south wind which brings up showers and causes the grass to grow.
</p><p>
	It has been taught: R. Eliezer says that the world
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k25b_1:" I.e., closed on three sides and open on the fourth."
,k25b_2:" I.e., completely enclosed (by the firmament)."
,k25b_3:" Eccl. I, 6. Although in the text this is said of the wind, it is taken to refer to the sun also."
,k25b_4:" Ibid."
,k25b_5:" I.e., it traverses them in summer when it is above the horizon, and goes round in winter when it is below the horizon."
,k25b_6:" That the world resembles an exedro."
,k25b_7:" Job XXXVII, 9'"
,k25b_8:" Ibid."
,k25b_9:" The Hebrew word translated scatterers' is [H] which is taken by R. Joshua to mean 'unenclosed'."
,k25b_10:" Job XXXVII, 20."
,k25b_11:" Ibid."
,k25b_12:" Ibid. 22."
,k25b_13:" Isa. XLVI. 6; v. <i>supra</i> p. 126, n. 2."
,k25b_14:" Isa. IX. 19."
,k25b_15:" Ps. LXXXIX, 13; this shows that the right hand is the south."
,k25b_16:" Deut. XXVIII, 12."
,k25b_17:" The table being the symbol of plenty, and the candlestick of knowledge."
,k25b_18:" Prov. III, 16."
,k25b_19:" R. Ashi was in Babylonia."
,k25b_20:" Jer. I, 14."
,k25b_21:" V. <i>supra</i> 18a."
,k25b_22:" Because the roots spread to a great distance."
,k25b_23:" Lit., 'for his own arrows.' V. <i>supra</i> p. 114, n. 3."
,k25b_24:" Perhaps 'of Yawan', i.e. Greece."
,k25b_25:" Lit., 'He came before R. Ashi.'"
,k25b_26:" And therefore you are entitled to stop them. "
}

txt:
<p>
is like an <I>exedra</I>,<a id="k25b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and the north side is not enclosed, and so when the sun reaches the north-west corner, it bends back and returns [to the east] above the firmament. R. Joshua, however, says that the world is like a tent,<a id="k25b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the north side is enclosed, and when the sun reaches the north-west corner it goes round at the back of the tent [till it reaches the east], as it says. <I>It goeth toward the south and turneth again toward the north</I>, etc.:<a id="k25b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; '<I>it goes toward the south</I>' &mdash; by day, and '<I>turneth again toward the north</I>' &mdash; by night. <I>It turneth about continually in its course and the wind returneth again to its circuits</I>:<a id="k25b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; this refers to the eastern and western sides of the heaven, which the sun sometimes traverses and sometimes goes round.<a id="k25b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; He [R. Joshua] used to say: We have come round to the view of R. Eliezer,<a id="k25b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [since we have learnt]: '<I>Out of the chamber cometh the storm</I>:<a id="k25b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; this is the south wind; <I>and from the scatterers cold</I>:<a id="k25b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; this is the north wind.<a id="k25b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; <I>By the breath of God ice is given</I>:<a id="k25b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; this is the west wind: <I>and the abundance of waters in the downpouring</I>:<a id="k25b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; this is the east wind.' But it has just been stated by a Master that it is the south wind which brings showers and makes the grass grow? &mdash; There is no contradiction; when the rain falls gently [it is from the south], and when it falls heavily [it is from the east.]
</p><p>
	R. Hisda said: What is meant by the verse, Out of the north cometh gold?<a id="k25b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; This refers to the north wind which makes gold flow; and so it says: <I>Who lavish</I> [ha-zalim] <I>gold from the purse</I>.<a id="k25b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Rafram b. Papa said in the name of R. Hisda: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed the south wind has not brought rain, as it says. And he decreed on the right hand and there was hunger and he consumed on the left and they were not satisfied;<a id="k25b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; and it is written, North and right hand<a id="k25b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; thou hast created them.
</p><p>
	Rafram b. Papa also said in the name of R. Hisda: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, rain no longer comes down from the 'good storehouse', as it says. The Lord shall open up to thee his good treasure:<a id="k25b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; When Israel act according to the will of God and are settled in their own land, then rain comes down from a 'good storehouse', but when Israel are not settled on their own land, then the rain does not come down from a 'good storehouse'.
</p><p>
	R. Isaac said: He who desires to become wise should turn to the south [when praying], and he who desires to become rich should turn to the north. The symbol [by which to remember this] is that the table [in the Tabernacle] was to the north of the altar and the candlestick to the south.<a id="k25b_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Joshua b. Levi, however, said that he should always turn to the south, because through obtaining wisdom he will obtain wealth, as it says. length of days are in her [wisdom's] right hand, in her left hand are riches and honour.<a id="k25b_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; But was it not R. Joshuah b. Levi who said that the <I>Shechinah</I> is in the west? &mdash; [He means that] one should turn partly to the south. Said R. Hanina to R. Ashi: Those like you who live to the north of Eretz Yisrael<a id="k25b_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; should turn to the south. How do we know that Babylon is to the north of Eretz Yisrael? &mdash; From the scriptural verse, Out of the north evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land.<a id="k25b_20"><sup>20</sup></a>
</p><p>
	FLAX-WATER MUST BE KEPT AWAY FROM VEGETABLES etc. A Tanna has taught: R. Jose holds it permissible in the case of mustard. because the owner can say to the other, 'As well as you can tell me to remove my mustard from your bees, I can tell you to remove your bees from my mustard, because they come and eat the twigs of my mustard plants.'<a id="k25b_21"><sup>21</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A TREE MUST BE KEPT AWAY FROM A PIT [IN A NEIGHBOUR' S FIELD] TWENTY-FIVE CUBITS &mdash; A SYCAMORE OR A CAROB FIFTY CUBITS;<a id="k25b_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE TREE IS ON HIGHER OR LOWER GROUND OR ON A LEVEL WITH THE PIT. IF THE PIT WAS THERE FIRST, THE OWNER CAN HAVE THE TREE CUT DOWN ON GIVING COMPENSATION. IF THE TREE WAS THERE FIRST, HE CAN NOT HAVE IT CUT DOWN. IF THERE IS A DOUBT WHICH WAS THERE FIRST, HE CANNOT HAVE IT CUT DOWN. R. JOSE, HOWEVER, SAYS THAT EVEN IF THE PIT WAS THERE BEFORE THE TREE THE OWNER CANNOT HAVE THE TREE CUT DOWN, BECAUSE THIS ONE DIGS IN HIS PROPERTY, THE OTHER PLANTS IN HIS.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A Tanna has taught: 'Whether the tree is on higher ground than the pit or the pit is on higher ground than the tree.' If the tree is on higher ground than the pit, we can understand the prohibition, because the roots spread and damage the pit. But if the pit is higher than the tree, what reason is there? &mdash; R. Haga said in the name of R. Jose: Because the roots undermine the soil and damage the floor of the pit.
</p><p>
	R. JOSE SAYS THAT EVEN IF THE PIT WAS THERE BEFORE THE TREE THE OWNER CANNOT HAVE THE TREE CUT DOWN, BECAUSE THIS ONE DIGS IN HIS PROPERTY. THE OTHER PLANTS IN HIS. R. Judah says in the name of Samuel: The <i>halachah</i> is according to R. Jose. R. Ashi said: When we studied with R. Kahana we used to say that R. Jose admits that a man is responsible for damage of which lie is the cause.<a id="k25b_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Papi Yona'ah<a id="k25b_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; was a poor man who made some money and built a country house. There were in his neighbourhood some sesame-oil makers who, when they crushed the sesame seeds, used to make his villa shake. He appealed against them to R. Ashi,<a id="k25b_25"><sup>25</sup></a>&nbsp; who said to him: When we studied with R. Kahana, we used to say that R. Jose admits that a man is responsible for the damage of which he is the cause.<a id="k25b_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; How much
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k26a_1:" According to others, 'as much as the lid shakes when the jar is held in the hands.'"
,k26a_2:" If a man winnows on Sabbath and the wind carries the chaff more than four cubits, he breaks the law regarding throwing on Sabbath."
,k26a_3:" And therefore the flax-beating could be stopped."
,k26a_4:" Who may say that a principle applying to a Sabbath prohibition does not necessarily apply to a trespass against property."
,k26a_5:" This being also a trespass against property rendering the smith liable although the spark is carried by the wind."
,k26a_6:" So that it shall not damage his own smithy."
,k26a_7:" Whether a corn field or an orchard."
,k26a_8:" Lit., 'This one may plant it close to the fence on this side, and this one etc.' because then there is no danger of <i>Kilayim</i>. V. <i>supra</i> 18a."
,k26a_9:" The Gemara discusses which one is meant."
,k26a_10:" I.e., so that he can plough under his vine without encroaching on his neighbour's field."
,k26a_11:" Because a shorter plough was used there."
,k26a_12:" Lit., 'here in Eretz Yisrael, here in Babylon.'"
,k26a_13:" Raba."
,k26a_14:" Lit., 'a tree for a tree, and vines for vines, but a tree for vines, etc.'"
,k26a_15:" Tosaf. points out that R. Joseph could be held responsible only if he had planted the date trees as saplings, but not if they had grown from date stones."
,k26a_16:" Lit., not its time.'"
,k26a_17:" Lit., 'he went and found him.' "
}

txt:
<p>
[must the house shake to constitute damage]? &mdash; Enough to make the lid of a pitcher rattle.<a id="k26a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	When the people in the house of Bar Marion the son of Rabin used to beat flax, the dust used to fly about and annoy people. They appealed to Rabina. He said to them: When we say that R. Jose admits that a man is responsible for damage of which he is the cause, this applies only to the case where he himself sets the cause of the damage in motion. Here it is the wind which carries the dust about, [and therefore they are not liable]. Mar, son of R. Ashi, strongly objected to this, saying: How do these man differ from a man winnowing [on Sabbath] when the wind carries the chaff further?<a id="k26a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; The case was stated before Meremar. and he said: This is in fact on all fours with that of the man winnowing on Sabbath when the wind comes and helps him.<a id="k26a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; And how does Rabina<a id="k26a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; differentiate this case from that of the spark flying from the smith's hammer and doing damage, for which the smith is responsible?<a id="k26a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; [He could reply that] the smith is glad to see the spark fly out,<a id="k26a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but here the people beating the flax do not want the dust to fly about.
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>MISHNAH</I></B>. A MAN SHOULD NOT PLANT A TREE [IN HIS OWN FIELD] CLOSE TO HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD<a id="k26a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; UNLESS HE KEEPS IT AT A DISTANCE OF FOUR CUBITS; THIS APPLIES BOTH TO A VINE AND TO ALL OTHER TREES. IF THERE IS A FENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FIELDS, EACH MAY PLANT CLOSE UP TO THE FENCE ON HIS OWN SIDE.<a id="k26a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; IF THE ROOTS [OF ONE MAN'S TREE] SPREAD INTO HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD, [THE LATTER] CAN CUT THEM AWAY TO A DEPTH OF THREE HANDBREADTHS SO THAT THEY SHOULD NOT IMPEDE THE PLOUGH. IF HE DIGS A PIT, DITCH, OR CAVE, HE CAN CUT RIGHT DOWN [TO ANY DEPTH]. AND THE WOOD BELONGS TO HIM.<a id="k26a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</p><p>
	<P><B><I>GEMARA</I></B>. A Tannahas taught: The four cubits here mentioned are to allow space for the work of the vineyard.<a id="k26a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Samuel said: This rule was only laid down for Eretz Yisrael; in Babylonia two cubits are sufficient.<a id="k26a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; This is also stated in a Baraitha: 'A man should not plant a tree nearer than two cubits to his neighbour's field.' But does not our Mishnah say four? &mdash; It must be therefore as Samuel has explained. This argument is also stated in the form of a contradiction [which is afterwards reconciled, thus]: Our Mishnah says: A MAN SHOULD NOT PLANT A TREE CLOSE TO HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD UNLESS HE KEEPS IT AT A DISTANCE OF FOUR CUBITS. But does not a Baraitha say two cubits? &mdash; Said Samuel: There is no contradiction. The Mishnah refers to Eretz Yisrael, the Baraitha to Babylon.<a id="k26a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba, son of R. Hanan, had some date trees adjoining a vineyard of R. Joseph. and birds used to roost on the date trees and fly down and damage the vines. So Raba, son of R. Hanan, told R. Joseph to cut down his date trees. Said the latter: But I have kept them [four cubits] away? This, replied the other, applies only to other trees, but for vines we require more. But does not our Mishnah say that THIS APPLIES BOTH TO VINES AND TO ALL OTHER TREES? Said he:<a id="k26a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; This is so where there are other trees or vines on both sides,<a id="k26a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; but where there are other trees on one side and vines on the other a greater space is required.<a id="k26a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Joseph: I will not cut them down, because Rab has said that it is forbidden to cut down a date tree which bears a <i>kab</i> of dates, and R. Hanina has said, 'My son Shikhath only died because he cut down a date tree before it was dead.'<a id="k26a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; You, Sir, can cut them down if you like.
</p><p>
	R. Papa had some date trees close to the field of R. Huna the son of R. Joshua. [One day] he found him<a id="k26a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; digging and cutting out the roots. What [do you mean by] this? he said to him. He replied: We learnt: IF THE ROOTS SPREAD INTO HIS NEIGHBOUR'S FIELD, [THE LATTER] MAY CUT THEM AWAY TO A DEPTH OF THREE HANDBREADTHS SO THAT THEY SHOULD NOT IMPEDE THE PLOUGH. Said the other: [The Mishnah] only [says] three, but you. Sir, are going deeper. He replied: I am digging for pits. ditches, and caves, In regard to which we learnt: IF HE DIGS A PIT, DITCH, OR CAVE, HE CAN CUT RIGHT DOWN AND THE WOOD BELONGS TO HIM. Said R. Papa [subsequently]: I tried all kinds of argument with him, but I could not convince him
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k26b_1:" Because the public has acquired a prescriptive right of way over it. I also have a prescriptive right to let my tree stand where it is."
,k26b_2:" Lit., 'here.'"
,k26b_3:" Because up to that distance the roots suck from the soil, though they actually spread 25 cubits. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k26b_4:" Lit., 'here'."
,k26b_5:" Adiabene."
,k26b_6:" (Me'i. 13b). Heb. <I>me'ilah</I>, [H] the technical name for the improper use of holy things by laymen (as distinct from the Sanctuary). V. Lev. V. 15."
,k26b_7:" And the wood in this case belongs to the owner of the tree."
,k26b_8:" Lit., 'read the end (clause)' in the Mishnah just quoted."
,k26b_9:" E.g.. the roots, which spread after the tree was consecrated."
,k26b_10:" V. Pes. 66b."
,k26b_11:" Lit. 'here'."
,k26b_12:" Because it says, <I>thou shalt take the first of all the fruit of the ground which thou bringest</I> from thy land (Deut. XXVI, 2.)"
,k26b_13:" An area of fifty cubits by fifty."
,k26b_14:" (Sheb. I, 6). Because the whole of the area is required for the nourishment of the trees and the ploughing is therefore purely for their benefit, and not for the purpose of sowing."
,k26b_15:" Who says that the tree sucks from an area with a radius of 26 cubits, which would be much more than 250 cubits."
,k26b_16:" A 'plantation field' was allowed to be ploughed up to the Feast of Weeks preceding the Sabbatical year, but a cornfield only up to the Passover. If the three trees are not combined, only the space required for each one can be ploughed up to the Feast of Weeks. "
}

txt:
<p>
till I adduced the dictum of Rab Judah: 'A strip of land over which the public has established a right of way must not be obstructed.'<a id="k26b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; After he [R. Papa] had left him, he [R. Huna] said: Why did I not answer him, '[The prescriptive right of a tree is only]<a id="k26b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; within sixteen cubits [from the trunk].<a id="k26b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [but I am cutting at a distance of]<a id="k26b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; more than sixteen cubits'?
</p><p>
	IF HE DIGS A PIT, DITCH OR CAVE HE CAN CUT RIGHT DOWN [TO ANY DEPTH] AND THE WOOD BELONGS TO HIM. Jacob of Hadayab<a id="k26b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; put the question to R. Hisda: To whom does the wood belong? &mdash; He replied: We [can] learn the answer [from the following Mishnah]: If the roots of a tree belonging to a layman spread into a field belonging to the Sanctuary, they may not be used [by a layman], but their use does not involve a trespass.<a id="k26b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; If now you say that the roots follow the tree, then there is a good reason why the use of them does not involve a trespass. But if you say that they take their character from the soil in which they are found, why is a trespass not involved? &mdash; What then [will you conclude] &mdash; that the tree is the decisive factor?<a id="k26b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; [If so], let us see what follows:<a id="k26b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; If the roots of a tree belonging to the Sanctuary spread into the field of a layman, they must not be used, but their use does not involve a trespass. Now if the tree is the decisive factor, why is no trespass involved? In fact, [this Mishnah, I should say,] tells us nothing about the question in hand, because it is concerned with 'a subsequent growth',<a id="k26b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and it holds that the law of trespass does not apply to 'subsequent growth'.<a id="k26b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Rabina replied that there is no contradiction [although in the first case the tree is the decisive factor and not in the second]. [In the first case we suppose]<a id="k26b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; the roots to be within sixteen cubits of the tree, [and in the second case]<a id="k26b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; beyond sixteen cubits from it.
</p><p>
	'Ulla said: A tree which is nearer than sixteen cubits to the boundary of a neighbour's field is a robber, and the offering of first fruits should not be brought from it.<a id="k26b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; From whence does 'Ulla derive this idea? Shall we say from [the following Mishnah] which we learnt: 'If ten shoots are planted at [equal] intervals in a beth <i>se'ah</i>,<a id="k26b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; then the whole of the beth seah may be ploughed up to New Year [of the Sabbatical year]'?<a id="k26b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; [This cannot be.] For what is the total area occupied? &mdash; Two thousand five hundred cubits. How much is that for each tree? &mdash; Two hundred and fifty cubits. Now, this is less than the space mentioned by 'Ulla.<a id="k26b_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; Can it be then from [the following Mishnah] which we learnt: 'If there are in a field three trees belonging to three different men, they can be combined [to place the field in the category of a plantation field],<a id="k26b_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; and the whole
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k29a_1:" Ibid. XXIX, 5."
,k29a_2:" And not a rule of law."
,k29a_3:" Ibid. XXXII, 24. This obviously is a piece of good advice merely, and thus the question remains, whence do the Rabbis derive the rule that three years' possession confers presumptive right?"
,k29a_4:" Because the original owner waived his right for the time being."
,k29a_5:" v. <i>infra</i> p. 155."
,k29a_6:" Though he does not waive his right to the produce."
,k29a_7:" The period required to confer <i>hazakah</i> will vary with the degree to which the original owners are particular."
,k29a_8:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 140."
,k29a_9:" E.g. six months in the first year and six in the last."
,k29a_10:" So long as three full years were made up altogether."
,k29a_11:" That in such places there must be three full years of occupation in all, but not necessarily at one stretch."
,k29a_12:" Even though the fields all round are left fallow."
,k29a_13:" Because he would have to bear singly the whole expense of the watchman."
,k29a_14:" And according to R. Huna, the occupation must be continuous."
,k29a_15:" And therefore their evidence cannot be accepted."
,k29a_16:" To whom but for their evidence we should assign the house."
,k29a_17:" I.e., accept their evidence, if they have already paid rent to the defendant. "
}

txt:
<p>
For if you hold otherwise, what do you make of the verse, Build ye houses and dwell in them, and plant gardens and eat the fruit of them?<a id="k29a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; That obviously is a piece of good advice,<a id="k29a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and so here too; the proof is that it says in the same connection, and put them in an earthen vessel that they may continue many days!<a id="k29a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No, said Raba, [the reason according to the Rabbis is this]: For the first year a man will forgo [his rights to the produce], for two years a man will forgo [his rights], but for a third year no man will forgo his rights. Said Abaye to him: In that case, when the land is restored [to the original owner on claiming it after two years], it should be restored without the produce;<a id="k29a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; why then has R. Nahman laid down that both the property and the produce have to be restored?<a id="k29a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba therefore correcting himself said: For the first year a man is not particular about another man usurping his field,<a id="k29a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; nor is he particular for the second year, but the third year he is particular. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, what of the people of Bar Eliashib who object even to anyone crossing their field? In their case should not occupation confer presumptive right immediately [if they do not object]? And if you say that that if so, then you introduce a kind of sliding scale?<a id="k29a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Raba therefore [again corrected himself and] said: For one year a man takes care of his title-deed, and so for two, three years does he take care; beyond that he does not take care. Said Abaye to him: If that is so, then [it would follow that] a protest made not in the presence of the holder is no protest, since the latter can say, 'If you had protested to me personally, I should have taken more care of my title-deed'? &mdash; The other can retort, '[You must have known of my protest because] your friend has a friend and your friend's friend has a friend.'<a id="k29a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Huna said: The three years mentioned in the Mishnah only count if the occupier took the crops in all three successively. What does this statement tell us? Does not the Mishnah say that PRESUMPTIVE TITLE IS CONFERRED BY THREE YEARS [POSSESSION] FROM DAY TO DAY? &mdash; You might think that the expression FROM DAY TO DAY was only meant to exclude short years,<a id="k29a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; and that interrupted years were permissible;<a id="k29a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; now I know that this is not so. R. Hama said: R. Huna admits [that interrupted years are also sufficient] in places where it is customary to leave fields fallow [in alternate years]. Is not this self-evident?<a id="k29a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; It required to be stated in view of the case where some owners leave their fields fallow and some do not, this man being one of those who do. You might think that in this case the claimant can say to him, 'If the field is yours, you ought to have sown it.'<a id="k29a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Now I know that this is not so, because the other can answer, 'I cannot keep watch over a single field in a whole valley';<a id="k29a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; or he can also answer, 'I prefer this way, because it makes the field more productive.'
</p><p>
	We learnt: [PRESUMPTIVE TITLE TO HOUSES] IS CONFERRED BY THREE YEARS [POSSESSION]. [Why should this be, seeing that] in the case of houses we can know if a man lives there by day but not if he lives there by night?<a id="k29a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye answered: Who is it that testifies to [a man having lived in] a house? &mdash; The neighbours; and the neighbours know whether he has lived in it by night as well as by day. Raba answered: [The way it can be known] is if, for instance, two persons come forward and say, We hired the house from him and lived in it day and night for three years. Said R. Yemar to R. Ashi: But these men are interested witnesses,<a id="k29a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>&nbsp; because if they do not make this assertion we shall tell them to go and pay the rent to the claimant?<a id="k29a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; R. Ashi replied: Only incompetent judges would proceed thus.<a id="k29a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; [No.] The case Raba has in mind is where they come with the rent and inquire to whom they are to give it.
</p><p>
	Mar Zutra said: If the claimant demands that two witnesses should be produced to testify that the occupier lived in the house three years day and night, his demand is valid.
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k29b_1:" V. <i>supra</i> p. 109."
,k29b_2:" Because as such people are away for long periods, it is easy for other persons to occupy their houses without being noticed."
,k29b_3:" An important commercial centre in Babylonia."
,k29b_4:" By having three years' undisturbed possession."
,k29b_5:" And therefore it was incumbent on the claimant to lodge a protest before three years had passed, and since he did not do so, a presumptive right has been established."
,k29b_6:" Lit., 'eaten'."
,k29b_7:" I.e., by making some use of the ground to show that it is his."
,k29b_8:" Lit., 'What do you want?'"
,k29b_9:" I.e., three years. And therefore it is mine, although I cannot produce any record of the purchase."
,k29b_10:" Because to a certain extent I had the use of your room, being able to pass in and out, and therefore it has not belonged to you for three years."
,k29b_11:" Lit., 'prove your eating'. "
}

txt:
<p>
[And though in this case the court does not suggest the plea] Mar Zutra admits that where the claimant is an itinerant peddler,<a id="k29b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; even if he does not raise the plea, the court raises it for him.<a id="k29b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna also admits that [though normally the three years must be continuous], in the case of the shops of Mahuza<a id="k29b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [this is not necessary], because they are only used by day and not by night.
</p><p>
	Rami b. Hama and R. 'Ukba b. Hama bought a maidservant in partnership, the arrangement being that one should have her services during the first, third and fifth years, and the other during the second, fourth and sixth. Their title to her was contested, and the case came before Raba. He said to the brothers: Why did you make this arrangement? So that neither of you should obtain a presumptive right against the other [was it not]?<a id="k29b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Just as you have no presumptive right against each other, so you have no presumptive right against outsiders. This ruling, however, only holds good if there was no written agreement between them to share [the maidservant]: if there was such an agreement, it would become bruited abroad.<a id="k29b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	Raba said: If the occupier has utilised<a id="k29b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the whole field except the space of the sowing of a quarter of a <i>kab</i>, he acquires ownership [after three years] of the whole field with the exception of that space. Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: This only applies [if the space so left over] was suitable for sowing; but if it was not suitable for sowing, it is acquired along with the rest of the field. To this R. Bibi b. Abaye strongly objected, saying: If that is so, how does a man acquire a piece of rock [through occupation]? Is it not by stationing his animals there and laying out his crops there?<a id="k29b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; So here too, he should have stationed his animals there and laid out his crops there.
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What right have you<a id="k29b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; in this house?' He replied, 'I bought it from you, and I have had the use of it for a period of <i>hazakah</i>.'<a id="k29b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; To which the other replied, 'But I have been living in an inner room [and therefore did not protest].'<a id="k29b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; The case was brought before R. Nahman, who said to the defendant: You must prove that you have had constant use of the house<a id="k29b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; [for three years without the claimant]. Said Raba to him: Is this a right decision? Is not the onus probandi in money cases always on the claimant?
</p><p>
	A contradiction was pointed out between Raba's ruling here and his ruling in another place, and between R. Nahman's ruling here and his ruling in another place. For a certain man
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k30a_1:" I.e., which I acquired from Bar Sisin."
,k30a_2:" Because in the former case Raba decides in favour of the purchaser and R. Nahman in favour of the seller, and in the latter case Raba decides in favour of the seller and R. Nahman in favour of the purchaser."
,k30a_3:" And Raba decides in each case in favour of the party in possession."
,k30a_4:" The three years' occupation taking the place of a title-deed."
,k30a_5:" So here we can say to him, 'Prove that you have had unchallenged occupation'. Thus in both cases R. Nahman requires the party in possession to prove his right."
,k30a_6:" Lit., 'in outside markets;' i.e., in places not on any caravan route. "
}

txt:
<p>
said to another, 'I will sell you all the property of Bar Sisin's.'<a id="k30a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; There was a piece of land which was called Bar Sisin's, but the vendor said, 'This is not really the property of Bar Sisin though it is called Bar Sisin's.' The case was brought before R. Nahman, and he decided in favour of the purchaser. Said Raba to him: Is this a right decision? Does not the onus probandi always lie on the claimant? There is thus a contradiction between these two remarks of Raba, and also between the two rulings of R. Nahman.<a id="k30a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Between the two remarks of Raba there is no contradiction. In the latter case the seller is in possession; in the former the purchaser is in possession.<a id="k30a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Neither is there any contradiction between the two rulings of R. Nahman. [In the latter case,] since the seller professed to sell the property of Bar Sisin's and this land is called Bar Sisin's, it is for him to prove that it is not Bar Sisin's, but here let the occupier [in pleading presumptive right] be but treated as if he produced a document of sale,<a id="k30a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; in which case should we not say to him: 'Prove your document to be valid and you can remain in ownership of the property'?<a id="k30a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What right have you in this house?' He replied, 'I bought it from you and have had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.' Said the other, 'I was abroad<a id="k30a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; all the time [and therefore did not know or protest].' 'But,' said the first, 'I have witnesses to prove that you used to come here for thirty days every year.' 'Those thirty days,' he replied, 'I was occupied with my business.' [On hearing of the case] Raba said: It is quite possible for a man to be fully occupied with his business for thirty days [and not to know that another has occupied his house].
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so who told me that he had bought it from you.' Said the first, 'You admit then
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k30b_1:" Lit., 'you are not my litigant.'"
,k30b_2:" Because the occupier had no proof that the man from whom he bought the land bought it from the original owner. Hence his occupation is not supported by any genuine plea."
,k30b_3:" Lit., 'The second suits me, the first is a harder customer.'"
,k30b_4:" I.e., signed his name as witness to the contract of sale."
,k30b_5:" I.e., the Sages."
,k30b_6:" Viz., signed a document."
,k30b_7:" In order to avoid the trouble of going to law."
,k30b_8:" Meaning thereby presumably 'three years'."
,k30b_9:" And the reason why I said merely 'period of hazakah' was because I did not know you had a deed going back further than three years."
,k30b_10:" Since he had already had the use of the land for three years after his alleged purchase of it, and his title was therefore unassailable. "
}

txt:
<p>
that this land was once mine and that you did not buy it from me. Clear out; you have no case against me.'<a id="k30b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; [On hearing of this] Raba said: He was quite within his rights in what he said to him.<a id="k30b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so and have had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.' Said the other, 'So-and-so is a robber.''But,' said the first, 'l have witnesses to prove that I came and consulted you and you advised me to buy the property.' 'The reason is,' said the other, 'that I preferred to go to law with you rather than with him.'<a id="k30b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; [On hearing of this] Raba said: He was quite within his rights in what he said to him. What authority does Raba follow? &mdash; The authority of Admon; for we have learnt: 'If a man claims a field after having witnessed<a id="k30b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; to the sale of it to another, Admon says that [his claim is still admissible] because he can say, I prefer to go to law with the second rather than the first; the Sages, however, say that [by so doing] he forfeits his right [to put forward a claim]. &mdash; You may even say that Raba is in agreement with the Rabbis<a id="k30b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; also. For in that case [they quash his right to make a claim] because he has actually done something [which conflicts with it],<a id="k30b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; but in this case [he has merely said something], and a man may easily let a word slip out of his mouth.
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so and I have had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.' Said the first, 'So-and-so is a robber.' 'But,' said the other, 'I have witnesses to prove that you came the evening [before] and said to me, "Sell it to me".' 'My idea was,' said the first, 'to buy what I was already legally entitled to. [On hearing of it] Raba said: It is not unusual for a man to buy what he is already legally entitled to.<a id="k30b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to his neighbour, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from so-and-so and have had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.'<a id="k30b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Said the other, 'But I have a title deed to prove that I bought it from him four years ago.' Said the other; 'Do you think that when I say the period of <i>hazakah</i> I mean only three years? I mean a lot of years.'<a id="k30b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: It is not unusual to refer to a long period of years as 'the period of hazakah'. This [maxim] would apply [to the present case] only if the occupier has had the use of the land for seven years, so that his presumptive right came before the deed;<a id="k30b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k31a_1:" Namely, the action of the original owner in selling the land after the occupier had been on it only two years, so that in reality he never acquired <i>hazakah</i>."
,k31a_2:" Lit., 'fathers'."
,k31a_3:" The latter, who occupied the field."
,k31a_4:" Which is a stronger plea and therefore we believe him when he says that he inherited it from his father."
,k31a_5:" In this case, the evidence brought by the claimant that the land had belonged to his father."
,k31a_6:" Lit., 'plead and again plead,' i.e., modify or expand the first plea, but not contradict it entirely. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k31a_7:" Because he is simply making his former plea more emphatic, and not altering it."
,k31a_8:" Lit., 'the eating of it.' "
}

txt:
<p>
but if only six years, then no protest could be more effective than this.<a id="k31a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[There was a case] where one said, '[This land belonged] to my father,'<a id="k31a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other pleaded, 'It belonged to my father'. The one brought witnesses to prove that it belonged to his father, and the other brought witnesses to prove that he had had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>. Rabbah said [in giving judgment]: What motive had he<a id="k31a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; to tell a falsehood? If he liked, he could have pleaded [without fear of contradiction], 'I bought it from you and had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.'<a id="k31a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Abaye to him: But the consideration, 'why should he tell a falsehood,' is not taken into account where it conflicts with evidence?<a id="k31a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; So the occupier pleaded again, 'Yes, it did belong to your father, but I bought it from you, and what I meant by saying that it belonged to my father was that I felt as secure In it as if it had belonged to my father.'
</p><p>
	[The question here arises:] Is a litigant allowed to alter his pleas<a id="k31a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [in the course of the case], or is he not allowed to alter his pleas? 'Ulla said: He is allowed to alter his pleas; the Nehardeans say, he is not allowed to alter his pleas. 'Ulla, however, admits that if this man had pleaded at first,' It belonged to my father and not to yours,' he could not later alter his plea [to say, 'It did belong to yours']. 'Ulla also admits that if a man does not amend his pleas in any way when in court, but after leaving the court comes In again and amends them, the rule that he may alter his original plea does not apply, because we assume that someone has suggested the amended plea to him. The Nehardeans [on their side] admit that if [after saying, 'It belonged to my father'] he pleads, 'my father who bought it from your father,' he is allowed to alter his plea [to this effect];<a id="k31a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; also that if a man makes certain statements outside [the court] and then wants to plead something quite different in court, he may do so, because a man often does not wish to state his case save in actual court. Amemar said: I am a Nehardean, and I hold that pleas may be altered. And such is the accepted ruling, that pleas may be altered.
</p><p>
	[A case arose in which] one said, 'This [land belonged] to my father,' and the other said, 'To my father,' but the one brought witnesses to prove that it had belonged to his father and that he had had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>, and the other brought witnesses [only] to prove that he had had the use of it for a sufficient number of years to confer a legal title. Said R. Nahman: The evidence that the one has had the use of it cancels out the evidence that the other has had the use of it, and the land is therefore assigned to the one who brings evidence that it belonged to his father. Said Raba to him: But the evidence has been confuted? &mdash; He replied: Granted that it has been confuted in regard to the user,<a id="k31a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k31b_1:" In regard to all the discussion which follows it should be borne in mind that according to Jewish law, two witnesses are required to establish a case (v. Deut. XIX, 15)."
,k31b_2:" I.e., it is not disqualified by the suspicion of having given false evidence in this case. But one witness from one set may not combine with one from the other in another case, because one of them has certainly given false evidence in this case."
,k31b_3:" In admitting the evidence of witnesses whose veracity is suspect."
,k31b_4:" Both would agree that according to R. Hisda the evidence in regard to the father cannot be accepted."
,k31b_5:" I.e., the occupier, having heard R. Nahman's decision."
,k31b_6:" Lit., we put him down and we can raise him up.'"
,k31b_7:" Which will be criticised for altering its decisions."
,k31b_8:" Because in that case if she bad consulted the <i>Beth din</i>, they would not have allowed her to marry."
,k31b_9:" For fear that she might bring into disrepute the <i>Beth din</i> which gave her permission to marry again. This refutes R. Nahman."
,k31b_10:" And reverse the first decision on the production of new evidence."
,k31b_11:" Lit., 'trees'."
,k31b_12:" So as to be entitled to receive the priestly dues and perform the priestly functions."
,k31b_13:" The title given to the Deputy High Priest. "
}

txt:
<p>
has it been confuted in regard to the father? May we say that [in principle] the difference between R. Nahman and Raba here is the same as that between R. Huna and R. Hisda in the following statement: If two sets<a id="k31b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; of witnesses contradict one another [so that one set must be giving false evidence], R. Huna says that each set may give evidence as a whole [in another case];<a id="k31b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Hisda, however, says, What have we to do with false witnesses?' May we say then that R. Nahman here follows R. Huna<a id="k31b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and Raba, R. Hisda? &mdash; No. There is no difference between them in the application of R. Hisda's ruling.<a id="k31b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; Where they differ is in the application of R. Huna's ruling. R. Nahman would thus have acted on the ruling of R. Huna, whereas Raba [would maintain] that R. Huna only meant it to apply to evidence given in another case entirely, but not, as here, to another part of the same case.
</p><p>
	He<a id="k31b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; then brought witnesses to prove that the land had belonged to his father. R. Nahman [thereupon] said: As we put him out, so we can put him in;<a id="k31b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and we disregard any disrepute that this may bring on the <i>Beth din</i>.<a id="k31b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba [or others say R. Ze'ira] objected [to this ruling on the strength of the following]: If two witnesses declare that a man is dead and two others declare that he is not dead, or if two declare that his wife had been divorced from him and two that she had not been divorced, she must not marry again, but if she has married she need not leave [her husband]. R. Menahem, son of R. Jose, says that she must leave [the second husband]. Said R. Menahem, son of R. Jose: When do I say that she must leave the husband? &mdash; If the witnesses [who say he is not dead] came first and she married afterwards;<a id="k31b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but if she was married before these witnesses came she need not leave her husband.'<a id="k31b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Nahman replied: I was going to act [according to the declaration I just made].<a id="k31b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; Now, however, that you have brought arguments against me and that R. Hamnuna in Sura has [likewise] refuted me, I shall not act so. [In spite of this statement, however,] he subsequently did act so Those who saw it thought he had made a mistake, but this was not the case, because he had the support of great authorities.<a id="k31b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; For we learnt: A man is not given the status of priest<a id="k31b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; On the evidence of one witness. Said R. Eliezer: This is only when his title is called into question; but if no one calls his title into questions one witness is sufficient. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said in the name of R. Simeon the son of the Segan:<a id="k31b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; One witness is sufficient to prove a man's title to be a priest. Is not Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel merely repeating R. Eliezer? And should you say that they differ in regard to the case where there is only one challenger, R. Eliezer holding that an objection is valid if raised by one challenger, and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holding
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k32a_1:" And therefore he was disqualified, on the basis of Lev. XXI, 7."
,k32a_2:" V. <a href=\"../tglossary.html\">Glos.</a> The Rabbis forbade a priest to marry a <i>haluzah</i> also."
,k32a_3:" And R. Nahman in his dictum was thus following R. Simeon b. Gamaliel."
,k32a_4:" Since R. Eliezer is anxious to safeguard the dignity of the <i>Beth din</i>."
,k32a_5:" And therefore R. Nahman had great authorities on his side."
,k32a_6:" E.g., one testifies that he saw the claimant lend the defendant a certain sum on one day, while the other maintains that it was on the next day. This first clause of the Baraitha here quoted has nothing to do with the argument, and is only inserted to make the quotation complete."
,k32a_7:" Thus R. Gamaliel agrees with R. Nathan and R. Eliezer with the anonymous opinion. "
}

txt:
<p>
that there must be two, then what of the statement of R. Johanan who said that according to all authorities no objection is valid unless it is raised by two challengers? We suppose therefore that the objection has been raised by two; and here we are dealing with a case where the father of this man is known to have been a priest, but a report has been spread that his mother was a divorced woman<a id="k32a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; or a <i>haluzah</i>,<a id="k32a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; and we therefore deposed him, and then one witness came and testified that he was a genuine priest and we reinstated him, and then two came and testified that his mother was a divorced woman or a <i>haluzah</i> and we degraded him again, and then one more witness came and testified that he was a genuine priest. Now all authorities agree that the evidence [of the two witnesses who testify to his genuineness] is combined [although they did not testify in each other's presence], and the point at issue is whether or not we disregard any disrepute that may be brought upon the <i>Beth din</i> [for altering its decision]. R. Eliezer held that once we have deposed him we do not reinstate him, for fear of bringing disrepute on the <i>Beth din</i>, whereas Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that just as we have deposed him so we can reinstate him, and we disregard any disrepute that may be brought thereby on the <i>Beth din</i>.<a id="k32a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. Ashi strongly disputed this explanation [saying]: If this is the case, why [should R. Eliezer refuse to reinstate him] if only one witness appears at the end? Why not even if two come together?<a id="k32a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said R. Ashi. All agree that we disregard any disrepute that may be brought on the <i>Beth din</i>,<a id="k32a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and the point at issue here is whether the evidence [of different witnesses] can be combined, a point on which we find a difference between Tannaim. For it has been taught: 'The evidence of the two witnesses is not combined, and does not carry weight unless they both [testify to] have seen at the same time. R. Joshua b. Korhah, however, says that the evidence is combined even if one [testifies that he] saw at one time and the other at another.<a id="k32a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Nor is their evidence accepted in the <i>Beth Din</i> unless they testify together. R. Nathan, however, says that the evidence of one may be taken on one day and the evidence of the other when he comes on the next day.'<a id="k32a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What are you doing on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from you, and here is the deed of sale.'
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k32b_1:" Possibly one not actually forged but referring to a fictitious sale."
,k32b_2:" And since he has admitted as much, how can you say that 'if he had liked he could have said it was genuine'?"
,k32b_3:" Where the defendant produces the forged document."
,k32b_4:" Where the claimant produces the forged document."
,k32b_5:" Lit., 'where it stands'."
,k32b_6:" Since there is a doubt to whom it belongs."
,k32b_7:" I.e., which he should believe."
,k32b_8:" Following reading of Rashb."
,k32b_9:" The bond after it has been honoured is regarded by Abaye as on the same footing as the 'forged' bond mentioned above."
,k32b_10:" Because the previous transaction was now closed, and the bond no longer had any force. "
}

txt:
<p>
'It is a forged document,' said the first. On this the other leaned over to Rabbah and whispered to him, 'It is true that this is a forged document;<a id="k32b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; I had a proper deed but I lost it, so I thought it best to come into court with some sort of document.' Said Rabbah: What motive has he for telling a falsehood? If he had liked he could have said [without fear of contradiction] that the document was genuine. Said R. Joseph to him: On what do you base your decision? On this document? But this document is only a piece of clay!<a id="k32b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'Pay me the hundred <i>zuz</i> that I am claiming from you; here is the bond.' Said the other: 'It is a forged bond.' The first thereupon leaned over and whispered to Rabbah, 'It is true the bond is forged, but I had a genuine bond and lost it, so I thought it best to come into court with some sort of document.' Rabbah thereupon said: What motive has he for telling a falsehood? If he had liked, he could have said that it is a genuine bond. Said R. Joseph to him: On what do you base your decision? On this document? But this document is only a piece of clay. R. Idi b. Abin said: The accepted ruling follows the view of Rabbah in the case of the land<a id="k32b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; and that of R. Joseph in the case of the money.<a id="k32b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; It follows the view of Rabbah in the case of the land, because [we say,] Let the land remain in its present owner ship;<a id="k32b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and that of R. Joseph in the case of the money, because we again say, Let the money remain in its present ownership.<a id="k32b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>
</p><p>
	A certain [man who had gone] surety for a borrower said to him, 'Give me the hundred <i>zuz</i> which I paid the lender on your behalf; here is your bond.' Said the other, 'Did I not pay you?' He rejoined, 'Did you not borrow the money from me again?' R. Idi b. Abin [before whom the case came] sent a message to Abaye [enquiring] as to the ruling for such a case.<a id="k32b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye sent him back answer: What do you want to know?<a id="k32b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Did you not yourself say that the accepted ruling is that of Rabbah in the case of the land and of R. Joseph in the case of the money, namely, that the money should remain In Its present ownership?<a id="k32b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, holds good only if the surety said to the other, 'After repaying, you again borrowed the money from me.'<a id="k32b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however, he says, 'I returned it to you because the coins were worn or rusty,' the obligation of the bond still remains.
</p><p>
	It was rumoured of Raba b. Sharshom that he was using for himself land that belonged to orphans [for whom he was trustee]. So Abaye sent for him and said to him: Tell me now the main facts of the case. He said: I took over this land from the father of the orphans as a mortgage [for money that he owed me], and he owed me
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k33a_1:" For which no land had been mortgaged to him."
,k33a_2:" Because he had had unchallenged occupation for more than three years."
,k33a_3:" And this is equivalent to a protest, in which case no right can be proved save through a deed of sale."
,k33a_4:" I.e., thirteen years old."
,k33a_5:" Referring to R. Idi."
,k33a_6:" Lit., 'on whom'."
,k33a_7:" And therefore he is in effect making you a gift of the tree, though you cannot claim it by law. Hence you cannot claim the produce, if he does not choose to give you that also. "
}

txt:
<p>
other money besides.<a id="k33a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; When I had had the use of the land for the number of years covered by the mortgage, I said to myself: If I restore the land to the orphans and then tell them that I have still a claim on their father for more money, [I shall have to comply with] the rule of the Rabbis that 'anyone who claims to recover from orphans must support his claim with an oath.' I will therefore keep back the mortgage bond and continue to use the land to the extent of the money still owing to me; for since, if I were to say that I had bought the land, my plea would be accepted,<a id="k33a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; I shall certainly be believed when I say that they owe me money. Said Abaye to him: You could not plead that you have bought the land, because common report says that it belongs to the orphans.<a id="k33a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Go therefore and restore it to them, and when they become of age<a id="k33a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; claim your debt from them in court.
</p><p>
	A relative of R. Idi b. Abin died, leaving a date tree. [R. Idi and another man disputed its possession] R. Idi saying, 'I am the nearer relative,' whilst the other man said, 'I am the nearer relative;' [and the other man seized the tree]. Eventually, however, he admitted that R. Idi was a nearer relative, and R. Hisda assigned to him the tree. He [R. Idi] then claimed: 'Let him return me the produce which he has consumed from the time he seized it.' Said R. Hisda: 'So this is the man<a id="k33a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; who is said to be a great authority! On what ground do you base<a id="k33a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; [your ownership]? On this man s admission. But he has been saying till now that he was the nearer relative.'<a id="k33a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye and Rab did not concur in R. Hisda's decision;
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k33b_1:" Lit., 'Since he admitted, he admitted.' The above is the interpretation of this passage given by Rashb., and though satisfactory in itself it does a certain amount of violence to the original. Tosaf. therefore reads, instead of 'he admitted that R. Idi was a nearer relative', simply 'he admitted', i.e., he gave way, allowing R. Idi to keep the tree, though he did not formally admit that he was the nearer relative. We then translate lower down: 'Through whose word (do you become owner of the tree)? Through this man's etc:' and in the last sentence, 'Since he gave way (in regard to the tree), he must give way (in regard to the produce).' R. Han. reads, instead of 'he admitted etc.', 'R. Idi brought witnesses to prove that he was the relative' (or, alternatively, 'the nearer relative'). In that case we translate the last sentence, 'Abaye and Raba held&nbsp;&hellip; that since he admitted (that he consumed the produce), he must abide by the admission (and pay for it).'"
,k33b_2:" I.e., not less than three years."
,k33b_3:" And therefore we believe him when he says that it belonged to his father."
,k33b_4:" Lit., 'l went down to.'"
,k33b_5:" And he would not have had to restore the produce as well as the land."
,k33b_6:" I.e., that if the occupier pleads, 'I bought it from the claimant', his word should be accepted, because he would not take the liberty of occupying it otherwise."
,k33b_7:" Lit., 'the Rabbis sitting before Abaye.'"
,k33b_8:" Presumably silver or gold. "
}

txt:
<p>
they held that the man's admission covered the produce as well as the tree.<a id="k33b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[A case arose] in which one said, ['The land belonged] to my father,' and another said 'To my father,' but while the one brought witnesses to prove that it had belonged to his father [up to the time of his death], the other brought witnesses to prove that he had had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.<a id="k33b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; [When the case came before] R. Hisda, he said: What motive has he [who occupies it] to tell a falsehood? If he likes he can say, 'I bought it from you and have had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.'<a id="k33b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye and Raba, however, did not concur in this judgment of R. Hisda, on the ground that we do not advance the plea 'What motive had he to tell a falsehood' when it conflicts with direct evidence. 
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What are you doing on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from you and have had the use of It for the period of <i>hazakah</i>.' He then went and brought witnesses to prove that he had had the use of it for two years [but could not find witnesses for the third]. R. Nahman thereupon decided that he should restore both the land and the produce. R. Zebid said: If he had pleaded, 'I was working<a id="k33b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; the land for the produce only [as a metayer],' his plea would have been accepted.<a id="k33b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; For has not Rab Judah laid down that if a man takes a pruning knife and rope In his hand and says, 'I am going to gather the dates from the tree of so-and-so who has sold them to me,' his word is accepted, because a man would not take the liberty of gathering the dates from a tree which did not belong to him? So here, a man would not take the liberty to consume produce that did not belong to him. But might not the same be said of the land also?<a id="k33b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp;&mdash; If he [the occupier] claims the land, we say to him: Show us your deed of sale. Cannot we then say the same in the case of the produce also? &mdash; Written agreements are not usually made in regard to produce.
</p><p>
	A certain man said to another, 'What right have you on this land?' He replied, 'I bought it from you and I have had the use of it for the period of <i>hazakah</i>;' and he brought one witness to prove that he had had the use of it for three years. The Rabbis of the court of Abaye<a id="k33b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; propounded the opinion that this case was parallel to that of the bar of metal<a id="k33b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; [which was decided] by R. Abbah. [What happened was] that a certain man seized a bar of metal from another, and the latter brought the case before R. Ammi, before whom R. Abbah was sitting at the time. He brought one witness to prove that the man had snatched the article from him. 'Yes,' said the other, 'I did snatch, but it was my own property that I snatched.' R. Ammi thereupon said:
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k34a_1:" And therefore, since the claim is a pecuniary one, he could be called upon to deny the allegation on oath (V. Shebu. 40a)."
,k34a_2:" And therefore he is disqualified in this case from taking an oath in court."
,k34a_3:" In the case of the land the occupier ought to take an oath to deny the allegation of the one witness, but he cannot take an oath since he admits that he made use of the produce. Hence he should not only give up the land but make restitution for the produce he has consumed."
,k34a_4:" Since therefore the witness is in support of the occupier he cannot be made without more ado to pay for the produce, but might take an oath to confirm his claim in regard to the produce, though in the absence of two witnesses to prove his right he would have to return the land; v. Yad Ramah, a.l."
,k34a_5:" Here the witness is against the occupier, since he testifies that he occupied it only two years and not three, and if another witness made the same statement he would have to pay. Hence he is under obligation to deny the statement of the one witness on oath. This, however, he cannot do, as he admits that he has consumed the produce for two years. Hence he must pay. "
}

txt:
<p>
How are the judges to decide this case? Shall we make him pay? &mdash; There are not two witnesses against him. Shall we let him off scot free? &mdash; There is one witness.<a id="k34a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; Shall we administer an oath to him? &mdash; But he admits that he snatched the article, and since he admits that, he is, as far as this case goes, a robber.<a id="k34a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Said R. Abba to him: He is [in the position of a man who is] legally under obligation to take an oath and is yet unable to take it; and the rule is that whoever is under obligation to take an oath which he cannot take must pay.<a id="k34a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Abaye, however, said to the Rabbis: Are the two cases on all fours? [There in the case of the bar of metal] the witness comes to oppose [the defendant], and if there were another witness with him we should make him give up the article. Here [in the case of the land] the witness comes to support [the defendant], and if there were another witness we should confirm his title to the land.<a id="k34a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; If you do wish to draw a parallel with the case of R. Abbah, it would be in the case of one witness [who testifies that the occupier has had the use of the land] two years, and [where the claim is for] the produce.<a id="k34a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k34b_1:" But apparently without having actually seized the boat, since in that case the law would be that they should divide it, according to B.M. ad init."
,k34b_2:" So that the other should not sell it in the meanwhile."
,k34b_3:" I.e., which course is more likely to assist the rightful owner to obtain possession?"
,k34b_4:" Because we presume that he will succeed in finding witnesses, and therefore we prevent the boat from being disposed of in the interval."
,k34b_5:" Because we are afraid he will not find witnesses and we shall not know to whom to restore the boat, and therefore it is best to leave it alone."
,k34b_6:" It is not clear from the text whether this is a hypothetical case, or whether the <i>Beth din</i> really did attach the boat, perhaps on the request of both parties."
,k34b_7:" Lit., 'to prevail' &mdash; whether by argument or by force."
,k34b_8:" Because once property has come into the hands of the <i>Beth din</i>, it is not right that they should release it except to restore it to the proper owner."
,k34b_9:" Because they only attached it from the first on this condition."
,k34b_10:" I.e., the <i>halachah</i> follows R. Judah."
,k34b_11:" Whether landed property or other."
,k34b_12:" v. <i>supra</i> n. 7. "
}

txt:
<p>
	There was a certain river boat about which two men were disputing.<a id="k34b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; One said, 'It is mine', and the other said, 'It is mine. One of them went to the <i>Beth din</i> and appealed to them: 'Attach the boat<a id="k34b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; until I bring witnesses to prove that it belongs to me.' [In such a case] should we attach the boat or not?<a id="k34b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Huna says we should attach it,<a id="k34b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and Rab Judah says we should not.<a id="k34b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; [The <i>Beth din</i> having attached the boat],<a id="k34b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the man went to look for his witnesses but did not find them, whereupon he requested the <i>Beth din</i> to release the boat, leaving it to the stronger to obtain possession.<a id="k34b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; In such a case should we release or not? Rab Judah says we should not release,<a id="k34b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa says we should release.<a id="k34b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; The accepted ruling is that we should not attach in the first instance, but if we have attached we should not release.<a id="k34b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[If there are two claimants to a property<a id="k34b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; and] one says,' It belonged to my father,' while the other says, 'To my father' [without either of them bringing any evidence], R. Nahman says that whichever is stronger can take possession.<a id="k34b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Why, [it may be asked,] should the ruling be different here from the case in which two deeds [of sale or gift relating to the same property and] bearing the same date
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k35a_1:" I.e., where a man has first assigned a property to Reuben and then on the same day made out another deed assigning it to Simeon. The hour of the day at which the deed was written or transferred was not usually specified, save in Jerusalem."
,k35a_2:" According to Rashb. this means that they should estimate which of the two claimants the donor was more likely to favour; according to Tosaf. they should consult purely their own judgment."
,k35a_3:" The deeds themselves being the whole of the evidence bearing on the case."
,k35a_4:" In which case the man who has seized the property may still be dispossessed."
,k35a_5:" Lit., 'before I sold it, I.e., before the purchaser had taken possession, and therefore the offspring was not included in the sale."
,k35a_6:" Lit., 'since I bought it.'"
,k35a_7:" The transaction has to be one of exchange and not of sale in the case of the cow, for the reason that, in the case of all movables except human beings, a transaction of sale is not completed until the article bought is 'pulled' by the purchaser. Hence no dispute would have been possible about the calf. In the case of an exchange, however, the transaction is concluded as soon as the article given in exchange-here, the ass-is handed over. V. B.M. 100a. "
}

txt:
<p>
are presented in court,<a id="k35a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; in which case Rab rules that the property should be divided between the claimants, and Samuel that the judges should assign it according to their own discretion?<a id="k35a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In that case there is no chance that further evidence should come to light,<a id="k35a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; here there is a chance that further evidence may come to light.<a id="k35a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; But why should the ruling here be different from what we have learnt: 'If a man exchanges a cow for an ass and it calves, and similarly if a man sells a female slave and she bears a child, if the seller says that the birth took place before the sale<a id="k35a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; and the purchaser that it took place after the sale,<a id="k35a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; they must share the offspring'?<a id="k35a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; In that case each
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k35b_1:" I.e., each was at some time the owner of the cow or the slave."
,k35b_2:" Lit., 'a man from the street'."
,k35b_3:" Because possibly it belongs to neither of the claimants."
,k35b_4:" The two claimants being regarded as the 'public' (lit., 'many')."
,k35b_5:" And cannot be forced to make restitution."
,k35b_6:" And must be deprived of the property."
,k35b_7:" Because he does not know to which of the two claimants he should restore the property, and therefore he cannot make atonement like an ordinary robber."
,k35b_8:" This act being a kind of admission that the land belongs to him."
,k35b_9:" So as to ensure that he will be able to recover the property at the end of the period of leasing."
,k35b_10:" A form of deed by which a borrower transferred property to the lender for a fixed number of years."
,k35b_11:" Viz., that three years' occupation gives a title to ownership."
,k35b_12:" In the matter of <i>hazakah</i>."
,k35b_13:" It is assumed that a Jew is afraid to protest against the occupation of his land by a non-Jew, and therefore three years' undisturbed occupation confers no <i>hazakah</i> on the latter."
,k35b_14:" Given by the original Jewish owner to the non-Jew, even though both he himself and the non-Jew have enjoyed undisturbed occupation for three years. "
}

txt:
<p>
had [at some time] a pecuniary interest [in the article in dispute].<a id="k35b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; but in this case of R. Nahman, if the property belonged to one, It never belonged to the other.
</p><p>
	The Nehardeans laid down that if an outsider<a id="k35b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; comes and seizes the property, he is not forced to surrender it,<a id="k35b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; because R. Hiyya taught: He who robs the public<a id="k35b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; is not a robber in the legal sense.<a id="k35b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ashi said: He is indeed a robber in the legal sense,<a id="k35b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and why [does R. Hiyya say that] he is not a robber in the legal sense? Because he is unable to make restitution like an ordinary robber.<a id="k35b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>
</p><p>
	THEIR PERIOD OF <I>HAZAKAH</I> IS THREE YEARS FROM DAY TO DAY. R. Abba said: If [the claimant of a piece of land] helps [the man In possession] to lift a basket of produce on to his shoulders, this at once creates a presumption [that the land belongs to the latter].<a id="k35b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zebid said: If, however, he pleads, 'I have installed him [as a metayer] with a right to the produce [but not the ownership of the land],' his plea is accepted. This too is only the case if the plea is made within three years [of the alleged transfer], but not later. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: If he had made him a metayer [for more than three years], what was he to do?<a id="k35b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; He said: He should have lodged a protest within three years. For, were you not to say so, then what about the so-called 'mortgage of Sura'<a id="k35b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; containing the stipulation, 'On the termination of these [X] years this land shall be given up without payment.' Now suppose the mortgagee suppresses the mortgage bond and asserts that he has bought the land; are we indeed to say that his plea is to be accepted? Would the Rabbis make a regulation<a id="k35b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; which would expose the mortgager to unfair loss? But the fact is that he can protect himself by lodging a protest within three years; and so in this case also he can protect himself by lodging a protest within three years.
</p><p>
	Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A Jew who derives his title from a non-Jew is on the same footing as a non-Jew:<a id="k35b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; just as a non-Jew cannot prove his right save through producing a deed of sale,<a id="k35b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; so the Jew who derives his title from a non-Jew [to a field originally belonging to a Jew] cannot prove his right save through producing a deed of sale.<a id="k35b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; Said Raba: If, however, the Jew pleads,
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k36a_1:" Because, as stated above, the non-Jew can only prove his right by producing the deed of sale."
,k36a_2:" v. <i>supra</i> 33b."
,k36a_3:" In fields adjoining woods it was customary to make a fence a little within the border of the field and to throw seeds on the strip outside, so that the animals from the wood should eat what grew from these and not seek to penetrate within the fence."
,k36a_4:" The field he occupied."
,k36a_5:" <i>'Orlah</i>; Lev. XIX, 23, 24. When ye come to the land and plant trees for food, ye shall count the food thereof as uncircumcised; three years it shall be as uncircumcised unto you; it shall not be eaten of."
,k36a_6:" Kila'im; v. Lev. XIX, 29; Deut. XXII, 9."
,k36a_7:" <i>'Orlah</i> and Kila'im are prohibited; the produce of the Sabbatical year was common property. Hence the owner would not trouble to protest in these"
,k36a_8:" To feed cattle with."
,k36a_9:" Because by such a proceeding the occupier seemed to show that he was conscious that the field did not belong to him, and therefore the owner would not trouble to protest."
,k36a_10:" A fertile valley in the district of Mahuza where it was customary to do this, because corn was so abundant that it paid to feed cattle with it."
,k36a_11:" Such land being practically barren."
,k36a_12:" Lit., 'if he takes out a <i>kor</i> (of seed) and brings in a <i>kor</i> (of produce).'"
,k36a_13:" Because it is not worth the owner's while to protest."
,k36a_14:" Because the ordinary man is afraid to protest against the occupation."
,k36a_15:" Because knowing that they are able to take forcible possession whenever they please, they do not trouble to protest."
,k36a_16:" Lit., 'those kept in the folds', i.e., young animals, because they are liable to stray."
,k36a_17:" And in this respect living things differ from inanimate, possession of which confers presumptive right immediately, on the presumption that 'whatever a man holds is his'."
,k36a_18:" Because the child could not have got into the house by itself; hence the presumption is that it was bought from the previous owner."
,k36a_19:" I.e., he asserted that the goats had eaten barley to a much greater value than their own."
,k36a_20:" I.e., if he asserted that the goats belonged to him, his plea would be valid (in default of rebutting evidence). Hence, in default of further evidence on either side, he can claim compensation up to the value of the goats."
,k36a_21:" And therefore if they are found in another man's property, it is presumed that he has bought them."
,k36a_22:" In the morning when they go by themselves from their owners to the goatherd, and in the evening when they go back by themselves from the goatherd to the owners."
,k36a_23:" I.e., from the owners to the goatherds and vice-versa, and therefore have no chance to stray."
,k36a_24:" Who requires a minimum of eighteen months. V. <i>supra</i> 28a."
,k36a_25:" Who requires a minimum of fourteen months."
,k36a_26:" I.e., if one ploughed the field without sowing. "
}

txt:
<p>
'The non-Jew said to me that he had bought it from you,' his plea is accepted. [But] can it be possible that a plea which would not be accepted if put forward by a non-Jew<a id="k36a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; should be accepted if put forward by a Jew in the name of a non-Jew? Raba therefore corrected himself as follows: If the Jew pleads, 'The non-Jew bought it from you in my presence and sold it to me,' his plea is accepted, because if he had liked he could have brought against him [without fear of contradiction the still stronger plea], 'I myself bought it from you.'
</p><p>
	Rab Judah further said:<a id="k36a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; If a man takes a knife and a rope and says, 'I am going to gather the fruit from so-and-so's date tree which I have bought from him, 'his statement is accepted, because a man would not ordinarily presume to gather the fruit from a tree which does not belong to him. Rab Judah further said: If a man occupies the strip of another man's field outside of the 'wild animals' fence,'<a id="k36a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; this does not constitute a <i>hazakah</i>, because the owner can say, [The reason why I did not protest was because] whatever he sows, the wild animals eat up. Rab Judah further said: If he ate thereof<a id="k36a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; [only] 'uncircumcised' produce,<a id="k36a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; this does not count towards the three years of <i>hazakah</i>. It has also been taught to the same effect: If he takes from it only 'uncircumcised' produce, the produce of 'mingled seed',<a id="k36a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; or the produce of the Sabbatical year,<a id="k36a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; this does not confer <i>hazakah</i>. R. Joseph said: If he takes from the field immature produce,<a id="k36a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; this does not confer <i>hazakah</i>.<a id="k36a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; If, however-added Raba-the field is in the 'neck of Mahuza',<a id="k36a_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; this does confer <i>hazakah</i>. R. Nahman said: The occupation of land which is full of cracks does not confer <i>hazakah</i>.<a id="k36a_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; If the land yields no more than is sown In it,<a id="k36a_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; its occupation does not confer <i>hazakah</i>.<a id="k36a_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; Members of the Exilarch's house do not obtain <i>hazakah</i> through occupation of our fields,<a id="k36a_14"><sup>14</sup></a>&nbsp; nor do we obtain <i>hazakah</i> through occupation of theirs.<a id="k36a_15"><sup>15</sup></a>
</p><p>
	AND SLAVES etc. Is there then a presumptive title to slaves? Has not Resh Lakish laid down that 'there is no presumptive title to living creatures?<a id="k36a_16"><sup>16</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; Said Raba: [What Resh Lakish meant is that] there is no presumptive title in regard to them immediately, but there is after three years' possession.<a id="k36a_17"><sup>17</sup></a>&nbsp; Raba further said: If the slave is an infant in a cradle, presumptive right to it is conferred immediately.<a id="k36a_18"><sup>18</sup></a>&nbsp; Surely this is self-evident? &mdash; It required to be stated on account of the case where the child has a mother. You might think in that case that there is a chance that the mother brought it into the house where It now is [and left it there]. [Raba therefore] tells us that a mother does not forget her child.
</p><p>
	Some goats [went into a field] in Nehardea [and] ate some peeled barley [which they found there]. The owner of the barley went and seized them, and made a heavy claim on the owner of the goats.<a id="k36a_19"><sup>19</sup></a>&nbsp; The father of Samuel said: He can claim up to the value of the goats, because if he likes he can plead that the goats themselves are his by purchase.<a id="k36a_20"><sup>20</sup></a>&nbsp; [But surely] Resh Lakish has said that there is no <i>hazakah</i> to living things? Goats are an exception, because they are entrusted to a goatherd.<a id="k36a_21"><sup>21</sup></a>&nbsp; But they are left to themselves morning and evening?<a id="k36a_22"><sup>22</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; In Nehardea thieves abound, and the goats are delivered from hand to hand.<a id="k36a_23"><sup>23</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ISHMAEL SAYS, THREE MONTHS etc. May we say that the actual difference [between R. Ishmael<a id="k36a_24"><sup>24</sup></a>&nbsp; and R. Akiba<a id="k36a_25"><sup>25</sup></a>] is in regard to ploughing,<a id="k36a_26"><sup>26</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Ishmael holding that ploughing does not help to confer <i>hazakah</i> and R. Akiba that it does? &mdash; If this were the case, why should R. Akiba require a month
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k36b_1:" Since a field can be ploughed in one day."
,k36b_2:" R. Ishmael requires a full crop, which takes at least three months to grow, and R. Akiba requires only a partially grown crop, for which one month is sufficient."
,k36b_3:" I.e., the first and the third year."
,k36b_4:" Lit., 'Let him only put every tooth of the plough into the ground,' i.e., so that he shall find it better prepared when he comes to it."
,k36b_5:" Lit., 'Is it an advantage (to you) to reckon up authorities?'"
,k36b_6:" Where both lay down that a certain amount of cropping must be done in each of the three years."
,k36b_7:" That the period of <i>hazakah</i> for a non-irrigated field is not three full years but either eighteen months or fourteen months, in either case three crops being necessary."
,k36b_8:" Lit., 'from day to day'."
,k36b_9:" Because if the mere ploughing confers <i>hazakah</i>, one day in the year is sufficient. As Tosaf. points out, this reasoning conflicts with the statement made above, that the reason why the Rabbis require three full years is because up to that time a man is careful of his title-deeds."
,k36b_10:" Which produces three crops in less than three years. According to Rab, three croppings of such a tree would not confer <i>hazakah</i>, according to Samuel they would. R. Han., however, interprets the text to mean 'a date tree which casts its fruit,' and which therefore is not cropped three times even in three years. (V. Rashb.)"
,k36b_11:" Viz., that the gathering in of one kind of crop is equivalent to occupation for a year."
,k36b_12:" The Rabbis differ from R. Ishmael only in requiring three years where he requires one, but they would agree with him as to what constitutes a crop. Hence we may attribute to them the ruling which follows."
,k36b_13:" 50 cubits square. The reason why ten is taken is because if there are more than ten to the beth <i>se'ah</i>, this constitutes a 'wood', and to plant a field so thickly is not the ordinary way of occupying it. If again there are less, the field is not occupied properly. Cf <i>supra</i> 26b"
,k36b_14:" I.e., though the owner gathered grapes in each set only in one of the three years, he was reckoned as occupying the whole of the field, and so with the other two crops. "
}

txt:
<p>
in the first and third years? Even one day would be enough.<a id="k36b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; &mdash; No! Both are agreed that ploughing does not help to confer)hazakah, and the difference between them is whether a full or partially grown crop is required.<a id="k36b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; Our Rabbis taught: Ploughing does not help to confer <i>hazakah</i>. Some authorities hold, however, that it does help. Who are 'some authorities'? &mdash; R. Hisda said: This is the opinion of R. Aha, as we see from the following: If a man ploughs a field fallow one year and sows it two,<a id="k36b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; or [even] ploughs it fallow two years and sows it one, this does not confer <i>hazakah</i>. R. Aha, however, says that it does give him a presumptive right.
</p><p>
	R. Bibi inquired of R. Nahman: What is the reason of those authorities who lay down that ploughing does confer <i>hazakah</i>? &mdash; [He answered:] A man will not see someone else plough his field and keep quiet. And what is the reason of those who say that ploughed fallow does not confer <i>hazakah</i>? &mdash; Because the owner says to himself, 'The more he ploughs the better for me.'<a id="k36b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; The people of Pum Nahara sent to inquire of R. Nahman b. R. Hisda as follows: Will our master be so good as to instruct us whether ploughed fallow helps to confer <i>hazakah</i> or not? He replied: R. Aha and all the chief authorities of the age hold that ploughed fallow does help to confer <i>hazakah</i>. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: You gain nothing by citing authorities;<a id="k36b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; for Rab and Samuel in Babylon and R. Ishmael and R. Akiba in Eretz Yisrael held that ploughing does not help to confer presumptive right. The views of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba [on the subject] can be derived from the Mishnah.<a id="k36b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; Where do we find the view of Rab on the subject? &mdash; In the following statement: Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: This<a id="k36b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; is the view of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba, but the Sages say that the <i>hazakah</i> [of such a field] is conferred only by occupation for three full years.<a id="k36b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; Now the expression 'full years' is intended to exclude ploughed fallow, is it not?<a id="k36b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; Where is the view of Samuel on the subject expressed? &mdash; In the following statement: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: This is the view of R. Ishmael and R. Akiba, but the Sages say that <i>hazakah</i> is not obtained until the occupier- has gathered in three crops of dates and culled three vintages and plucked three crops of olives. Where does the difference arise between Rab and Samuel? &mdash; The difference arises In the case of a young date tree.<a id="k36b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>
</p><p>
	R. ISHMAEL SAID: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO A CORNFIELD etc. Abaye said: On the strength of R. Ishmael's ruling,<a id="k36b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>&nbsp; we may attribute the following opinion to the Rabbis.<a id="k36b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>&nbsp; Suppose a man has thirty trees in a field planted ten to the beth <i>se'ah</i>,<a id="k36b_13"><sup>13</sup></a>&nbsp; then if he takes the produce of ten in one year, ten in the next, and ten in the third year, this constitutes <i>hazakah</i>.<a id="k36b_14"><sup>14</sup></a>
</P>


lvr: 43
dfh: a
notes:
 ntes={k37a_1:" Lit., 'these &hellip; to these and these &hellip; to these.'"
,k37a_2:" Lit., 'be divided' (the fruits between the various sets of trees). Because if he takes the produce of ten in one beth <i>se'ah</i>, this is counted as a field by itself, and confers no right to the rest."
,k37a_3:" By digging or some similar action."
,k37a_4:" I.e., of the trees only, without any rights in the ground under or round them."
,k37a_5:" I.e., the ground under the trees and as much round them as is required for tending them (Rashb.)."
,k37a_6:" To one purchaser. V. <i>infra</i>."
,k37a_7:" Lit., 'he sells with a kindly eye,' i.e., if a man owns a courtyard or a field with a well in it, and sells the courtyard but not the well, he does not ipso facto retain a right of way through the courtyard or the field to the well, but has to pay for it, if required, to the purchaser. V. <i>infra</i> 64a."
,k37a_8:" There is therefore no danger that he will at some future time be called upon by the purchaser of the field to remove the well; hence it does not occur to him to reserve the ground round it for himself."
,k37a_9:" Through the spreading of the roots. "
}

txt:
<p>
For did not R. Ishmael lay down that one kind of crop confers a presumptive title to the whole field? So here, one set of ten trees confers a presumptive title to the others, and vice versa.<a id="k37a_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; This, however, is only the case if the other twenty did not produce [in the other two years]; for if they did produce and he did not take the produce, he obtains no <i>hazakah</i>. And in any case [it is necessary that the trees of which he does take the produce] should be spread about the field.<a id="k37a_2"><sup>2</sup></a>
</p><p>
	[If a man sells a field to two persons, the ground to one and the trees to the other, and] if the one takes possession of the ground and the other takes possession of the trees,<a id="k37a_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zebid says that the one becomes legal owner of the trees<a id="k37a_4"><sup>4</sup></a>&nbsp; and the other becomes the legal owner of the ground.<a id="k37a_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Papa strongly objected to this ruling. According to this, [he said,] the owner of the trees has no right whatever in the ground, and the owner of the ground can therefore tell him [when the tree withers], 'Cut down your tree and take it and be gone.' No, said R. Papa, [the law is that] the one becomes owner of the trees and half the ground, and the other of half the ground.
</p><p>
	There is no question that if a man sells a piece of ground<a id="k37a_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; and retains the trees on it for himself, he is entitled to a certain amount of ground [round the trees]. This ruling would be accepted even by R. Akiba, who said [in regard to a field with a well in it] that the seller interprets the terms of the sale liberally.<a id="k37a_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; For this only applies to a well and a cistern, which do not impair the soil,<a id="k37a_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; but in the case of trees which do impair the soil<a id="k37a_9"><sup>9</sup></a>
</P><hr noshade size="1"  width="100%"><P></P>


lvr: 43
dfh: b
notes:
 ntes={k37b_1:" The case here discussed is one in which only two trees are sold, since there is no question that the sale of three trees carries with it a certain amount of ground round the trees. V. <i>infra</i> 81a."
,k37b_2:" By making over the tree and its produce to you in perpetuity."
,k37b_3:" By allowing me ground under and round the tree."
,k37b_4:" Lit., 'sells with a malignant eye.'"
,k37b_5:" The text here reverts to the discussion of the subject of the thirty trees."
,k37b_6:" The 'trees' in question are apparently saplings which are meant to be transplanted."
,k37b_7:" Which also is planted closely, and with a view to transplanting."
,k37b_8:" Because they are meant to be uprooted."
,k37b_9:" I.e., with less than four cubits between the rows of vines."
,k37b_10:" And corn or other seed sown there does not form <i>kilayim</i>."
,k37b_11:" Kil. V, 2; v. <i>infra</i> 83a. And similarly in regard to the trees, the Rabbis look upon the middle ones as non-existent, and therefore if the owner sells them the purchaser acquires the soil round them; whereas Raba follows R. Simeon."
,k37b_12:" And can therefore plant a new one when this one withers. "
}

txt:
<p>
he would certainly reserve for himself [some of the soil], since otherwise the purchaser can say to him [when the tree withers], 'Pluck up your tree and be gone. If, however, a man sells the trees [in a field<a id="k37b_1"><sup>1</sup></a>&nbsp; and retains the ground for himself], in this there applies the dispute between R. Akiba and the Rabbis [viz., whether the purchaser is entitled to any ground round the trees]. According to R. Akiba, who holds that the vendor interprets the terms of the sale liberally, the purchaser is entitled [to such ground]; according to the Rabbis, he is not. That R. Akiba would allow the purchaser such ground would not be questioned even by R. Zebid, who said [in the case mentioned above] that he is not so entitled. For this was only where there were two purchasers, the reason being that one can say to the other, 'Just as I have no share in the trees, so you have no share in the ground.' Here, however, the seller interprets the terms of the sale liberally. That the Rabbis in this case do not allow the purchaser such ground would not be questioned even by R. Papa, who said above that he is so entitled. For this was only where there are two purchasers, the reason being that one [the purchaser of the ground] can say to the other, 'Just as the vendor interpreted the terms of sale generously for you,<a id="k37b_2"><sup>2</sup></a>&nbsp; so he did for me.'<a id="k37b_3"><sup>3</sup></a>&nbsp; Here, however, the seller interprets the terms of sale strictly.<a id="k37b_4"><sup>4</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Nehardeans say: [If the thirty trees mentioned above<a id="k37b_5"><sup>5</sup></a>&nbsp; are planted] close together,<a id="k37b_6"><sup>6</sup></a>&nbsp; the gathering in of their produce does not confer <i>hazakah</i>. Raba strongly questioned this ruling. On this view, he said, how is <i>hazakah</i> to be obtained in a row of clover?<a id="k37b_7"><sup>7</sup></a>&nbsp; No, said Raba; [what we should say is that] if a man sells saplings closely planted, the purchaser does not acquire any of the soil.<a id="k37b_8"><sup>8</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Zera said: A similar [difference of opinion is found] between Tannaim, [in the following Mishnah]: If a vineyard is planted on less than four cubits,<a id="k37b_9"><sup>9</sup></a>&nbsp; R. Simeon says that it is not a vineyard in the legal sense,<a id="k37b_10"><sup>10</sup></a>&nbsp; whereas the Rabbis say that it is a proper vineyard, the middle row being regarded as non-existent.<a id="k37b_11"><sup>11</sup></a>
</p><p>
	The Nehardeans say: If a man sells a date tree to another, the purchaser acquires the soil [under it] from its base to the furthest depth.<a id="k37b_12"><sup>12</sup></a>
</P>


