Bava Batra 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

According to whom does this

statement accord,

for Rabbi Yehoshua bar Abba said that Rav Giddel said that Rav said: The final eight verses

of the Torah

are read

only by a

single person,

and one does not interrupt them to call up another person to read part of the verses; rather, one person reads all eight verses.

Let us say

that it is like

Rabbi Yehuda,

who maintains that Joshua wrote these verses, and therefore the law governing these verses is not like the law governing all the verses of the Torah, in which it is permitted to interrupt,

and not like Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that Moses wrote these verses, for according to his view these verses are like the entire Torah.

The Gemara rejects this:

Even if you say

that it is possible to say that this applies even according to

Rabbi Shimon,

who maintains that Moses wrote the eight verses, nevertheless, the law governing these verses differs,

since they were changed

from the other verses of the Torah, as they were written in tears; therefore,

they were changed

also with regard to the fact that one does not interrupt them:

We learned above in a beraita:

Joshua wrote his book.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it is written

in the Book of Joshua:

“And Joshua son of Nun, servant of the Lord, died,”

and it is not possible that Joshua wrote this verse while he was still alive.

The Gemara answers:

He

completed the end of the book;

Eleazar

finished writing it.

Eleazar.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it is written

in the final verse of the Book of Joshua:

“And Eleazar son of Aaron died,”

and it is not possible that Eleazar wrote this verse while he was still alive.

The Gemara answers: This verse

he completed;

he finished writing it;

Phinehas.

We learned above in a beraita:

Samuel wrote his book.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it is written

in the Book of Samuel:

“And Samuel died.”

It is not possible that Samuel wrote this verse while he was still alive.

The Gemara answers:

He

completed the end of the book;

he completed it,

and

Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet finished it.

We learned above in a beraita:

David wrote the Book of Psalms

through ten elders.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And let him also count

“

Ethan the Ezrahite”

as one of the elders who recited Psalms, as it is stated in Psalms, chapter 89: “Contemplative prayer of Ethan the Ezrahite.”

The Gemara answers:

Rav said: Ethan the Ezrahite is Abraham,

and Abraham is already included in the beraita among the ten elders.

Proof that “Ethan the Ezrahite” is Abraham:

It is written here

in Psalms: “

Ethan the Ezrahite”;

and it is written there

in Isaiah [41:2]: “

Who aroused him from the east, righteousness,” etc. [This verse refers to Abraham, as explained in Sanhedrin 108b.] Rav therefore learned that the one of whom it is said “from the east, righteousness” is Ethan the Ezrahite.

[this verse refers to Abraham, as explained in Sanhedrin 108b]. Rav therefore learned that the one described as coming “from the east, righteousness” is Ethan the Ezrahite.

The Gemara continues to raise a difficulty against the beraita, which says that David wrote Psalms through ten elders:

He counts

the tanna of the beraita counts

Moses

as one of the ten elders,

and

so

he counts Heman,

who was also one of the ten elders.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But Rav said: Heman is Moses.

If so, there are not ten elders here, but nine, since Heman and Moses are one person.

Proof that Heman is Moses:

It is written here

in the Book of Psalms [chapter 88]: “Contemplative prayer of

Heman.”

And it is written there,

in the Five Books of Moses, where the Holy One, blessed be He, said about Moses: “

He is faithful throughout My house.”

This demonstrates that Heman is Moses, because “Heman” derives from the language of “faithful.”

The Gemara answers: Although Moses was also called “Heman,” nevertheless, he was not the Heman who was one of the ten elders; rather,

there were two Hemans!

We learned in a beraita:

Moses wrote his book, the portion of Balaam, and

also wrote the Book of

Job.

And this beraita

supports Rabbi Levi bar Lahma.

For Rabbi Levi bar Lahma said: Job lived in the days of Moses.

His proof is based on the fact that

it is written here

in the Book of Job [19:23], where Job said: “

Would that

my words were written.”

And it is written there,

in the Five Books of Moses [Exodus 33:16], where Moses said to the Holy One, blessed be He: “

And by what shall it be known

that I have found favor in Your eyes?”

Rabbi Levi learned by means of a gzera shava from the word “afo” written in Job to the word “afo” written concerning Moses that Job lived in the days of Moses.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But perhaps

Job lived

in the days of Isaac, for

it is

written

concerning Isaac, who said to Ishmael: “

Who

then

is he who hunted game?”

If so, we should connect the “afo” written in Job with the “afo” stated by Isaac.

The Gemara continues to raise a difficulty:

But perhaps

Job lived

in the days of Jacob,

as we also find the word “afo” in his days,

for it is written

that Jacob said to his sons: “

If so, then do this.”

The Gemara continues to raise a difficulty:

But perhaps

Job lived

in the days of Joseph,

as we also find the word “afo” in his context,

for it is written: “

Where

are they pasturing?”

The Gemara answers:

That cannot be.

It is not possible that Job lived in any generation other than the generation of Moses our teacher.

For

it is

written

in Job, chapter 19, verse 23:

“Would that they were written in a book and engraved,”

and

from the word “engraved” we can infer that Job lived in Moses’s generation. For

Moses is the one who is called

“

engraver,”

as it is written in the portion of Vezot HaBerakha concerning the tribe of Gad: “

in the section Vezot HaBerakha, concerning the tribe of Gad: “

And he saw the first portion for himself,”

he saw that the tribe of Gad would receive an inheritance in the land of Sihon and Og, which was the first conquest of the Land;

“For there is the portion of the engraver concealed,”

the grave of Moses our teacher, who is called “engraver,”

concealed.”

Rava said: Job lived in the days of the spies.

The proof is as follows:

It is written here

concerning Job [Job 1:1]: “

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job”;

and it is written there,

in the Five Books of Moses [Numbers 13:20], where Moses our teacher told the spies to scout the land: “

Is there a tree in it?” Rava learned by means of a gzera shava from the word “Uz” appearing in the Book of Job to the word “tree” appearing in the portion of the spies that Job lived in the days of the spies.

Rava derived a conclusion by an identical expression from the word “Uz” in the Book of Job and the word “tree” in the section about the spies, that Job lived in the days of the spies.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Are these comparable!?

After all,

here,

concerning Job, it is written

“Uz,”

whereas

there,

concerning the spies, it is written

“tree,”

and the words are not identical, so a gzera shava cannot be derived from them.

The Gemara answers: The proof that Job lived in Moses’s days is based on the way we interpret the verse “Is there a tree in it,” for

this is what he said to them;

this is what

Moses said to Israel:

There is

in the land of Canaan

that man

[Job]

whose years are long like a tree,

for Job lived a long time,

and who protects his people like a tree

that protects those who sit in its shade.

This is what Moses told the spies to investigate: “Is there a tree in it?”—whether Job, who protected his people, was still alive. This proves that Job lived in Moses’s days.

One of the Sages sat,

one of the scholars sat

before

him,

before Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani, and sat

and was saying:

Job did not exist and was not created; rather, it was a parable!

And this book was written in order to learn from it answers to those who challenge the attribute of justice, and also to learn from it that a person is not held accountable for his distress.

He said to him: Regarding you, the verse states

in Job [1:1], “

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job.”

And since the verse says “there was,” one cannot say that Job did not exist.

And the Gemara rejects this:

If that is so,

in every place where the expression “there was” is written, it is not a parable, but something that certainly occurred. If so, there is a difficulty from a verse in II Samuel [chapter 12, verse 3]. When Nathan the prophet rebuked David, he presented to him a parable about a certain rich man who had very many sheep and cattle:

“But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought, and it lived,”

and it grew up together with him ... and it was like a daughter to him.

Who was he?

Did this story actually occur? Surely it was

merely a parable,

and nevertheless the verse says, “and it was.” This proves that although the expression “there was” is written, it may refer to a parable. If so,

so too,

Job

is merely a parable

.

And the Gemara asks:

If so,

if he is merely a parable and Job is nothing more than a parable,

why mention his name and the name of his city!?

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar both say

—they both said:

Job was one of those who ascended from the exile,

and his beit-midrash was in Tiberias!

Meitivei

This is a difficulty raised against Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar, who maintain that Job was one of those who ascended from the exile, from what we learned in a beraita:

“The years of Job’s life were from the time Israel entered Egypt,”

when he was born,

“until they left,”

when he died.

This proves that Job lived during the period of the Egyptian exile, and was not one of those who ascended from the exile.

d

A case involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow: “

I am selling you all the property of the house of bar Sisin,”

that is, “I am selling you all the property that I purchased from a man named bar Sisin.”

There was a certain piece of land that was known as “

the house of bar Sisin,” [

there was a certain piece of land there that was called “the house of bar Sisin”]!

He said to him,

the seller said to the buyer:

“This is not the house of bar

Sisin; it is merely known as “

the house of bar Sisin,” [

I did not purchase this land from bar Sisin; it is merely called “the house of bar Sisin”].

They came,

the seller and the buyer,

before Rav Naḥman

to ask about the law, and

he placed

that land

in the possession of the buyer,

since the seller had not proven that he had not purchased it from bar Sisin.

Rava said

to Rav Naḥman:

Is that so?

Is this the law!?

But we have established:

The burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to take property from his fellow,

and since it is the buyer who is seeking to take the land from the seller, the burden of proof rests upon him!?

And if so,

Rava’s statement here contradicts Rava’s statement elsewhere,

as, with regard to Shikhunei Gavvai, Rava said that in a case of uncertainty the house is to remain in the possession of the buyer, and the seller is the one seeking to take it, so the burden of proof rests upon him; whereas here Rava maintains that in a case of uncertainty the land is to remain in the possession of the seller, and the buyer is the one seeking to take it, so the burden of proof rests upon him!?

And

there is also a difficulty

with regard to

Rav Naḥman’s statement here contradicting Rav Naḥman’s statement elsewhere!?

For, with regard to Shikhunei Gavvai, Rav Naḥman left the house in the possession of the seller until the buyer brought proof of his claim; whereas here Rav Naḥman maintains that in a case of uncertainty the land is to remain in the possession of the buyer!?

And we answer:

Rava’s statement here does not contradict Rava’s statement elsewhere:

There,

with regard to bar Sisin,

the seller is the one who

is

in possession of his property [

he is the one in possession of the property], and therefore the buyer is considered the one seeking to take it, so the burden of proof rests upon him.

Whereas

here,

with regard to Shikhunei Gavvai,

the buyer is the one who

is

in possession of his property,

as he was in possession of the outer rooms; therefore the seller is considered the one seeking to take it, and the burden of proof rests upon him.

Rav Naḥman’s statement here does not contradict Rav Naḥman’s statement elsewhere either:

There,

with regard to bar Sisin,

since he said to him,

the seller said that he was selling him the property of “

the house of bar Sisin,”

and

indeed

this field too is known as “

the house of bar Sisin,”

the house of bar Sisin,”

therefore

it is his responsibility to reveal that it is not the house of bar Sisin, [

the burden of proof rests upon the seller to show that this is merely a name and that the land never belonged to bar Sisin].

But here,

with regard to Shikhunei Gavvai,

the one in possession

the possessor

is no more

than one who

is holding a deed [

like one who is holding in his hand a deed of sale for the land],

do we not say to him

when the seller claims that the deed is forged: “

Establish the validity of your deed and arise to take possession of my property,” [

do we not say to him, “Establish the validity of your deed and descend to the property that you purchased”]!?

And likewise we should say to him: “Establish the validity of your presumption of ownership and descend to the property that you purchased”!

A case involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow,

who was in possession of his house: “

What are you doing in this house [

what are you doing in my house]?!”

He said to him,

the possessor said to the opposing litigant: “

I purchased it from you, and I consumed its produce for the requisite three years [

I purchased it from you, and I was in possession of it for three years], and my claim is credible!”

He said to him,

the opposing litigant said to the possessor: “Your presumption of ownership is not valid, for during the time that you were in possession

I was in distant marketplaces [

I was in a distant land], and caravans did not travel regularly from here to there to inform me of your possession, and I did not know about it; therefore I did not lodge a protest”!

He said to him,

the possessor said to the opposing litigant: “

But I have witnesses that every year you came for thirty days [

and I have witnesses that every year—during the three years that I lived in your house—you were here for thirty days and did not lodge a protest], and surely you learned during that time that I was in possession of your house.”

He said to him,

the opposing litigant said to the possessor: “Indeed, I was here, and I lived in another house, but I was completely unaware of your possession, for during those

thirty days I was occupied in the marketplace [

during those thirty days I was occupied with my business]”!

Rava said:

Indeed, his presumption of ownership is not valid, because

it is common for a person to be occupied in the marketplace for all thirty days [

a person may be occupied with his business for thirty days].

A case involving

a certain man who said to his fellow,

who was in possession of his field for less than three years

What are you doing in this land [

what are you doing in my land]”?!

He said to him,

the possessor said to the opposing litigant: “

I purchased it from so-and-so, who purchased it from you [

I purchased the field from so-and-so, and from him I heard that he had purchased the field from you]”!