Bava Batra 12a — the Talmud in English

We learned in a beraita:

a house

whose entrance opens toward a courtyard, behold, even though its entrance is

closed,

nevertheless

there are

for the homeowner

four cubits

in the courtyard opposite the entrance of the house, as is the law for every house whose entrance opens toward a courtyard. And the closing does not remove the designation of entrance. But if, at the time that he closed the entrance, he

broke away its doorposts,

he removed the lintel, the doorposts, and the threshold, in such a manner

he does not have four cubits

in the courtyard, because it is no longer considered that this house has an entrance to the courtyard —this beraita is explicit in accordance with the words of Rava.

And the beraita adds:

A house

in which there is a corpse, and its entrance is

closed, does not impart impurity to all its surroundings

but imparts impurity only to what stands opposite the entrance. But if, at the time that he closed the entrance, he

broke away its doorposts,

he removed the lintel, the doorposts, and the threshold, then the house

imparts impurity to all its surroundings,

for since he closed the house with a complete closure, the house becomes a grave, and the Sages rendered impure four cubits surrounding the grave, so that those who perform acts of purification should not approach the grave and spread over it without noticing and become impure.

Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

a city that has

alleys

roads

that are open through to another city,

and the inhabitants of that city pass through these roads to their city.

And the inhabitants of the city sought

whose alleys are under their authority

to close them,

so that they would be unable to pass through these alleys to the other city. Behold,

the inhabitants of that city

who were accustomed to pass through the alleys to their city

prevent them

from closing them.

It is not necessary to say

that one need not say that

when there is no other road,

so that if there is no other way to pass to the city

they prevent them,

so that the inhabitants of the second city can prevent them from closing the alleys.

Rather, even when there is another road, they also prevent them—

because of what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, for he said: a boundary

a private road

that the many have established,

where the many are accustomed to pass there with the permission of the owner of the boundary , again

it is forbidden

for the owner of the boundary

to damage it.

Therefore, it is forbidden for the inhabitants of the city to close the alleys leading to another city.

Rav Anan said in the name of Shmuel: Alleys

of individuals

that are open through

that are open

to the public domain, and the inhabitants of

the

alleys sought to place doors for themselves

for the alleys and close them. Behold,

the inhabitants of the public domain prevent them

from placing doors, since when there are many people in the public domain, they are accustomed to press into the alleys —

They thought

that

these matters

apply only when the inhabitants of the alleys wish to make doors

within four cubits

near the public domain, and the reason for the law that the inhabitants of the public domain prevent them is

as Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Nahman:

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Nahman:

If a doubt concerning impurity arose in the public domain, in a case of doubt he is pure. But if the doubt arose in the private domain, in a case of doubt he is impure. And Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Nahman that if the impurity was found within

the four cubits adjacent to the public domain,

then

we consider it like the public domain.

And they thought that for this reason the inhabitants of the public domain could prevent the inhabitants of the alleys from placing doors within the four cubits nearest the public domain, because the law of these four cubits is like that of the public domain.

But

that is not so!

For what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Nahman—that the four cubits adjacent to the public domain are like the public domain—applies only

there, with regard to impurity—

but here,

with regard to the doors of the alleys, the inhabitants of the alleys cannot make doors even beyond the four cubits adjacent to the public domain, because

sometimes they press

sometimes they press

the inhabitants of the public domain, and enter very far,

and enter into the alleys even beyond the four cubits adjacent to the public domain:

We learned in the Mishna:

And not

can one partner compel his partner to divide with him

the field, until there is in it

unless, after the division, there remains

nine kav for this one and nine kav for that one,

and Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and holds that it is sufficient that, after the division, nine half-kav remain in the possession of each one of them:

And we say:

And they do not disagree:

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree concerning the fundamental law, but

one according to his place and one according to his place.

In the place of the first tanna, they were accustomed to sow only a field that had nine kav, and therefore he said that if, after the division, nine kav did not remain in the possession of each one of them, then one could not compel his partner to divide the field. But in the place of Rabbi Yehuda, they were accustomed to sow even a field that had nine half-kav.

What is the law in Babylonia?

What is the measure in Babylonia [where the land was not valuable there, and a field having nine kav was not considered valuable ].

Rav Yosef said,

there must remain in the possession of each one of them land of the measure of

a day of plowing,

whose plowing takes an entire day.

And he is astonished:

What is a day of plowing?

How is this measure calculated—

The field is plowed twice a year: once after the harvest, and this plowing is called “plowing of fallow land,” and a second time at the time of sowing. At the time of the fallow-land plowing, the plowing is difficult and continues for a long time. But at the time of sowing, the plowing is easy, for the field has already been plowed at the time of the fallow-land plowing, and this plowing does not continue for a long time.

And we ask: According to what is the measure of a day’s plowing calculated?

If

the intention is

a sowing day,

the measure of a day’s plowing at the time of sowing, surely at the time of the fallow-land plowing the plowing in this field will continue for more than one day, since at the time of the fallow-land plowing the plowing is more difficult; and if at the time of sowing the plowing continues for an entire day, then at the time of the fallow-land plowing it continues longer. On the other hand, although the fallow-land plowing will continue for more than one day,

it will not be two complete days of plowing:

the plowing will not continue for two complete days, and if so, he will not find oxen to plow his field, because oxen are not rented for less than an entire day.

And

if

the measure is calculated according to

a plowing day,

a day of fallow-land plowing, surely

there will not be a sowing day:

at the time of sowing the plowing will continue for less than an entire day, because then the plowing is easier, and again the other will not find oxen to plow his field for less than an entire day.

And we answer:

If you wish, say

that the measure of a day’s plowing is calculated according to

a day of fallow-land plowing, a day of fallow-land plowing. And your difficulty—if so, when he plows at the time of sowing, the plowing will not continue for an entire day, and the other will not find oxen to plow his field—is answered by saying that it concerns a place

where

he plows and repeats,

where at the time of sowing they plow twice: once before sowing and once after sowing, and the two plowings together continue over an entire day—

And if you wish, say:

It is possible to say that the measure of

a day

of plowing is calculated according to

the sowing, a day of plowing at the time of sowing. And your difficulty—if so, at the time of the fallow-land plowing the plowing will continue for more than one day, and on the second day he will not find oxen to plow his field—is answered by saying that it concerns

a place

with ridges,

land that is hard and has descents and ascents, and the time of fallow-land plowing is two complete days.

Watering

The partners who had a field that they irrigated from a water well, and one of the partners wished to divide the field,

Rav Nahman said:

The field is not divided unless, after the division, there remains in the possession of one partner a portion of

a day of drawing water,

for a worker needs an entire day to irrigate it. For if a small portion remains in the possession of each one, which does not require irrigation for an entire day, it will be found that they suffer a loss, because they will not find someone who will hire himself out for half a day to irrigate the field.

Orchard:

If they were partners in a vineyard,

Shmuel’s father said:

The vineyard is not divided unless, after the division, there remains in the possession of each one of them a portion

of three kav.

It was likewise taught: One who says to his fellow, “A portion

a share

in a vineyard I am selling you,” Sumchos says: It may not be less than

a portion of

three kav—

behold, a “vineyard” is not considered to be a portion that does not contain three kav—

Rabbi Yosei said: These are only words of prophecy,

without a reason.

A vineyard situated

in Babylonia,

where the fields there are not valuable ,

what is the law?

What is the measure that must remain in the possession of each one of them so that one may compel his partner to divide the vineyard—

Rava bar Kisna said:

One cannot compel his fellow to divide the vineyard unless, after the division, there remains for each one of them

three rows

three rows

of twelve vines,

there being twelve vines in each row. And this measure is

so that a person can hoe in a day,

what a person hoes in a day.

Since Rabbi Yosei said, “These are only words of prophecy,” and called the words of the Sages “prophecy,” the Gemara brings the following statement:

Rabbi Avdimi of Haifa said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Sages.

And he is astonished:

It follows from Rabbi Avdimi’s words that at first the Sages were not prophets, and only after prophecy was taken from the prophets was it given to the Sages. And this is astonishing, for

is a Sage not a prophet?

And he answers:

This is what he is saying:

At first, prophecy was the inheritance of the Sages and the prophets, and when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets, but

even though it was taken from the prophets,

who are not Sages ,

it was not taken from the Sages!

Ameimar said: And a Sage is superior to a prophet ,

as it is stated: “And a prophet with a heart of wisdom”,

and the interpretation of this verse is that a prophet has a wise heart .

Who is attached to whom?

You must say: The lesser is attached to the greater!

And from here, that the Sage is superior to the prophet.

Abaye said: Know

that prophecy was not taken from the Sages ,

for

behold,

a great man uttered a matter,

for a Sage states a halakha from his own understanding,

and it is said

in the name of another great man, like him,

and that halakha is stated in the name of another Sage . Thus, the Sage who stated the halakha without knowing that this halakha had already been stated by another Sage is like a prophet.

Rava said: And what is the difficulty?

Is this not proof that prophecy was not taken from the Sages?

Perhaps both of them are children of one constellation,

it is possible that the two Sages who stated the same halakha were children of the same constellation, and because of this they directed themselves to one another’s words.