Bava Batra 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in a beraita:

A house

whose entrance opens onto a courtyard—even though its entrance is

closed—

nevertheless

has

the homeowner

four cubits

in the courtyard opposite the entrance of the house, as is the law with regard to every house whose entrance opens onto a courtyard. The closure does not remove the designation of the opening. But if, when he closed the entrance, he

removed its doorposts,

meaning that he removed the lintel, the doorposts, and the threshold, then

he does not have four cubits

in the courtyard, because this house is no longer considered to have an entrance opening onto the courtyard — this beraita explicitly supports Rava’s statement.

The beraita adds:

A house

containing a corpse, whose entrance is

closed, does not impart ritual impurity to all that surrounds it; rather, it imparts impurity only to what stands opposite the entrance. But if, when he closed the entrance, he

but imparts impurity only to whatever is directly opposite the entrance. But if, when he closed the entrance, he

removed its doorposts,

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

imparts impurity to all that surrounds it,

because once he completely sealed the house, the house becomes a grave, and the Sages declared four cubits surrounding a grave impure, so that those engaged in preparing items for ritual purity would not approach the grave and spread themselves over it without realizing it , and thereby become impure.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A city containing

passageways,

roads

that lead directly to another city,

and the inhabitants of that city pass along these roads to reach their city:

the inhabitants of the city requested

that the passageways, which were under their authority,

be closed,

so that the residents of the other city could no longer pass through these passageways to the other city.

The inhabitants of that city,

who were accustomed to passing through the passageways to their city,

may prevent them

from closing them.

It is not necessary to say—

it goes without saying that

when there is no other road,

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

they may prevent them,

meaning that the inhabitants of the second city may prevent the first inhabitants from closing the passageways.

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

because of what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A private path

a path belonging to an individual

that the public have established,

meaning that the public regularly pass there with the owner’s permission , nevertheless

is forbidden

for the owner of the property

to damage it.

Therefore, the inhabitants of the city are forbidden to close the passageways leading to another city.

Rav Anan said that Shmuel said: Passageways

belonging to individuals

that are open

and lead

to the public domain, and the inhabitants of the

passageways

requested to install doors for themselves

at the passageways and close them:

the inhabitants of the public domain may prevent them

from installing doors, because when there are many people in the public domain, they are accustomed to pressing into the passageways —

They thought

that

this matter

applies only when the inhabitants of the passageways wish to install doors

within four cubits

near the public domain. The reason the inhabitants of the public domain may prevent them is

as in the statement of Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Naḥman:

For Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naḥman:

If uncertainty arose concerning ritual impurity in the public domain, the person is considered pure due to the uncertainty. But if the uncertainty arose in a private domain, he is considered impure due to the uncertainty. Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naḥman that if the impurity was found within

the four cubits adjacent to the public domain,

then it is

considered as the public domain.

They thought that for this reason the inhabitants of the public domain may prevent the inhabitants of the passageways from installing doors within the four cubits nearest the public domain, since these four cubits have the status of the public domain.

But

that is not so!

For what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naḥman—that the four cubits adjacent to the public domain have the status of the public domain—applies only

there, with regard to ritual impurity—

But here,

with regard to the doors of the passageways, the inhabitants of the passageways may not install doors even beyond the four cubits adjacent to the public domain, because

at times they press

meaning that sometimes

the inhabitants of the public domain press in and enter deeply,

entering into the passageways even beyond the four cubits adjacent to the public domain.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

a partner cannot compel his partner to divide the property with him

with regard to a field, unless it contains

that is, unless after the division there will remain

nine kav for this one and nine kav for that one, and Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and maintains that it is sufficient for nine half-kav to remain in each of their possessions after the division.

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:

They do not disagree

The first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda do not disagree about the fundamental law. Rather,

one follows the practice of his place and the other follows the practice of his place.

In the place of the first tanna, they were accustomed to sow only a field containing nine kav; therefore, he said that if nine kav would not remain in each partner’s possession after the division, one could not compel his partner to divide the field. In Rabbi Yehuda’s place, however, they were accustomed to sow even a field containing nine half-kav.

What is the law in Babylonia?

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

Rav Yosef said:

There must remain in each of their possessions land measuring

a day’s plowing,

meaning land whose plowing takes an entire day.

And the Gemara asks:

What is a day’s plowing?

How is this measure calculated?

A field is plowed twice a year: once after the harvest, and this plowing is called “plowing the fallow,” and a second time at the time of sowing. At the time of plowing the fallow, the plowing is difficult and takes a long time. At the time of sowing, however, the plowing is easier, since the field was already plowed when the fallow was prepared, and this plowing does not take as long.

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

If

the intention is

a sowing day,

that is, a day’s plowing at the time of sowing, then when the field is plowed during the fallow, the plowing will take more than one day, since plowing the fallow is more difficult. If plowing at the time of sowing takes an entire day, plowing the fallow will take longer. On the other hand, although plowing the fallow will take more than one day,

it will not be two full days of plowing,

the plowing will not take two complete days. If so, he will not find oxen to plow his field, since oxen are not rented for less than an entire day.

And

if

the measure is calculated according to

a fallow-plowing day,

a day of plowing the fallow, then

there will not be a sowing day: at the time of sowing, the plowing will take less than one day, because the plowing is easier then, and once again he will not find someone to rent him oxen to plow his field for less than an entire day.

plowing at the time of sowing will take less than a full day, because that plowing is easier, and once again he will not find someone to rent him oxen for less than a full day.

And we answer:

If you wish, say

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

a fallow-plowing day,

a day of plowing the fallow. As for your difficulty that when he plows at the time of sowing the plowing will not take an entire day, and he will not find oxen with which to plow his field, the answer is that the case concerns a place

where they plow and repeat,

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

And if you wish, say

that the measure of

a day

of plowing is calculated according to

a sowing day,

a day of plowing at the time of sowing. As for your difficulty that when plowing the fallow the plowing will take more than one day, and on the second day he will not find oxen with which to plow his field, the answer is that the case concerns

terraced land,

hard land containing rises and depressions, and plowing the fallow takes two full days.

A water-drawing field

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

Rav Naḥman said:

The field may not be divided unless, after the division, there remains in one partner’s possession a portion measuring

a day’s water-drawing,

meaning a portion that requires a worker to spend an entire day irrigating it. For if a small portion remains in each partner’s possession that does not require irrigation for an entire day, they will suffer a loss, since they will not find anyone willing to hire himself out to irrigate the field for half a day.

A vineyard

If they were partners in a vineyard,

Shmuel’s father said:

The vineyard may not be divided unless, after the division, there remains in each partner’s possession a portion

of three kav.

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

a share

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

a portion of

three kav—

thus, a portion containing three kav is considered a “vineyard.”

Rabbi Yosei said: These are nothing but words of prophecy,

without an evident reason.

A vineyard located

in Babylonia,

where fields were not considered valuable ,

what

is the measure that must remain in each partner’s possession so that one partner can compel the other to divide the vineyard?

Rava bar Kahana said:

One partner cannot compel the other to divide the vineyard unless, after the division, there remains for each of them

three rows ,

three rows

of twelve vines,

with twelve vines in each row. This measure is

the amount a person can hoe in a day,

what a person can hoe in one day.

Since Rabbi Yosei said, “These are nothing but words of prophecy,” and called the words of the Sages “prophecy,” the Gemara cites the following statement:

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

And the Gemara asks:

Rabbi Avdimi’s statement implies that initially the Sages were not prophets, and only after prophecy was taken from the prophets was it given to the Sages. This is perplexing:

Is it so that a Sage is not a prophet?

And the Gemara answers:

This is what he is saying:

Initially, prophecy was the possession of both the Sages and the prophets. Once the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets,

even though it was taken from the prophets

who were 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 of a heart of wisdom.”

The meaning of this verse is that a prophet has a wise heart .

Who is subordinate to whom?

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

From here it follows that a Sage is superior to a prophet.

Abaye said: Know

that prophecy was not taken from the Sages ,

for

indeed,

a great man stated a matter,

meaning that a Sage stated a halakhic ruling on his own reasoning,

and it was said

in the name of another great man, like him,

and that same halakhic ruling was attributed to another Sage . Thus, the Sage who stated the halakhic ruling without knowing that another Sage had already stated it was like a prophet.

Rava said: And what is the difficulty?

This is not necessarily proof that prophecy was not taken from the Sages,

for perhaps both of them were born under the same constellation,

meaning that it is possible that the two Sages who stated the same halakhic ruling were born under the same astrological sign, and therefore arrived independently at the same conclusion.