michelle

Bava Batra 31

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 222017
 

More cases are brought concerning claims on property.  Within the discussion of the cases, various issues come up – is one’s claim believed if he could have made a better claim (ma li lshaker)?  That works as long as there aren’t witnesses against him.  If part of the testimony in court is cancelled out because contradictory testimony is brought against it, do we throw out the entire claim or do we leave the part that wasn’t contradicted?  If new evidence is brought which contradicts the evidence upon which the court ruled in favor of one side, should the court reverse its decision and take the land away or should they stick with the original decision because if they don’t, it will that cause people to lose respect for the courts?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 29

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 202017
 

Rava gives a third interpretation of why one can claim ownership over land one has been living in for three years.  After a few comments by Abaye, Rava clarifies his statement and gives a conclusive explanation.  Rav Huna says that the three years need to be consecutive.  Various comments are made on this statement including questions, qualifying statements, etc.   The gemara begins to brings actual cases that happened and discuss what the halacha is in the various cases.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 28

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 192017
 

If one is living on a property for a period of time and the original owner does not protest, if the one living on the property cannot produce documentation of ownership, but claims that he/she bought the land or was given it as a gift, that is enough to prove ownership as one cannot be expected to save documentation for a long period of time.  How much time is generally 3 years however it depends on what type of property and what signs of ownership.  Rabbi Yishmael holds that it is sufficient to have 3 harvests of different types of fruits, that would be sufficient.  Also how to calculate 3 years depends of the type of land – three full years or parts of the first and last year with a whole year in the middle.  The gemara then attempts to derive the source for 3 years/harvests. Two answers are brought – one a comparison to a shor muad and another learned out from a verse in Yirmiyahu where he tells the people to buy land and write documents and save them as they will only be in the land for two years – assumption: if it were 3, there would be no need for documentation.  The gemara questions the first interpretation however brings answers – although in the end, the comparison only works for Rabbi Yishmael’s opnion.  The Yirmiyahu proof is rejected as it is said that it can be viewed as good advice only and not as halacha.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 26

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 172017
 

How much does one need to distance his tree from another’s property?  One reason for the distance is to leave room for the neighbor to plow.  If one’s roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain distance depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for).  Various cases are brought discussing these halachot.  The mishna says that when one is allowed to cut the roots of a neighbor’s tree, the wood from the roots goes to “him.”  The gemara tries to figure out whether the “him” refers to the owner of the tree or the owner of the neighboring field.  Ulla says that since roots of a tree will get nourishment from a neighboring field if it is within 16 cubits, one does not bring Bikurim from such a tree.  The gemara tries to bring sources to see where he gets to that number from.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 25

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 162017
 

As part of a discussion about in which direction of the city may one set up a tannery due to the bad smell and the direction that the winds travel, the gemara goes off on a tangent regarding the strengths of each of the winds (the 4 directions).  From there, the gemara brings a braita that attempts to explain why we only see the sun during the day and also why summer days and winter days have different amounts of sunlight/daytime hours.  One must distance a tree from a neighbor’s pit as the roots will damage the pit.  Details of this law are discussed.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 24

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 152017
 

Abaye brings a proof from blood found in the cervix for Rabbi Chanina’s statement that if there is a majority against proximity, majority wins (majority of blood comes from the uterus which is impure blood but there is a closer chamber which would not be impure blood).  Rava disagrees with Abaye’s comparison because he says the majority of uterine blood is different from a regular majority because of the frequency.  In the end, though, Rava changes his mind and agrees that this case would support Rabbi Chanina.  Various other cases regarding a situation with a safek (doubt) are brought as relating to Rabbi Chanina’s opnion but they are all rejected (for various reasons each one has other factors that led to the determination of the halacha – not having to do with majority vs. proximity.  A tree must be distanced from the city a certain amount of space for aesthetic reasons.  The law is different depending on whether the city was there when the tree was planted to vice-versa or if it was unknown which came first.  The gemara compares the law here to the law in the case in a different mishna regarding a tree planted near a neighbor’s pit and explains the differences between the cases.  A threshing floor must be distanced 50 cubits from a city and from neighboring fields.  The last line in the mishna is unclear and two epxlanations are brought to explain whether it is a new law or explaining the reason for the law already stated in the mishna.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 23

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 142017
 

One needs to distance one’s ladder on a shared wall from another’s dovecote 4 cubits so that a mongoose doesn’t climb up and eat the doves.  In the context of this, the gemara raises issues of indirect damages and that one cannot lay a claim to land via chazaka in a case where is causes damages.  However, the latter one is narrowed to very specific types of damages.  One needs to distance one’s dovecote from a city and other fields a certain distance to prevent one’s doves from eating seeds or grains of others.  But if one purchased a field that had a dovecote within a short distance from one’s neighbor, one can assume that it was done within the law (the neighbor allowed it or was compensated financially).  The mishna discusses laws relating to a chick found in a certain area – how does one determine to whom the chick belongs?  Rabbi Chanina says that in determining uncertainties, and there is a majority factor and a proximity factor that each lead to different conclusions, one follows the majority.  Three cases are brought (including our mishna) that seem to indicate proximity would be the more compelling factor.  Each one is resolved.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 22

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 132017
 

The gemara continues discussing under what circumstances outsiders can come into a town and sell there wares.   Special dispensations are made for those who learn.  As a result, the rabbis unfairly questioned Rav Dimi when he came to town to sell and since he didn’t know the answer, they assumed he wasn’t a talmid chacham and he couldn’t sell his wares.  When he went to complain to Rav Yosef, Rav Yosef cursed those who did this and the rabbi who had questioned Rav Dimi died.  An interesting number of statements are brought by various rabbis who all assumed responsibility for his death (some connected to this particular incident and others not at all).   The mishna discusses one who has a wall next to another’s wall and wants to build a wall, one needs to leave a distance of 4 cubits, and also if the wall has a window, one needs to distance his wall from the window by 4 amot (higher, lower or opposite).  the first case is quite confusing and two explanations are brought.  One of them, brought by Rava explains that the first wall was also 4 cubits away and it fell.  One needs to distance the new one 4 cubits away for that space is left for people to tread on the ground alongside the wall which will strengthen the neighbor’s wall.   Various questions are brought on this explanation of Rava – from the second part of the mishna and from another braita.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Bava Batra 21

 Bava Batra  No Responses »
Feb 122017
 

Can one who shares a courtyard with others open a store in one’s house that will attract many people and cause traffic and noise in the courtyard?  Can one have a profession that makes lots of noise (blacksmith)?  Can one be a teacher of children as children make a lot of noise?  Different issues regarding education – what type is the best type of teacher (more knowledge vs. patience to correct mistakes of the children), how many children should be in a class, the responsibility of the city to set up teachers, does one fire a less good teacher for one who is better, etc.  Can one open a store in an alleyway of the same type of another member of the alleyway?  Does it depend on whether he was a resident of that alleyway or city?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

 Older Entries  Newer Entries