Bava Batra 30a — the Talmud in English

According to whom does this go,

according to whose view is this statement

which Rabbi Joshua bar Abba said in the name of Rav Giddel in the name of Rav: The eight verses

last

in the Torah,

only

one person reads them,

and we do not interrupt in them to have another person called up to read part of the verses; rather, one person reads all eight verses.

Let us say

that it is like

Rabbi Judah,

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

and not like Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that Moses wrote these verses. For according to his words, these verses are like the entire Torah.

And the Gemara rejects:

Even if you say

it is possible to say that it is also like

Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that Moses wrote the eight verses, nevertheless the law of these verses is different:

since they changed,

these verses from the rest of the verses of the Torah, for they were written with tears, therefore

they changed

also concerning this matter, that one does not interrupt in them.

We learned above in a beraita:

Joshua wrote his book.

And the Gemara asks:

But it is written

in the Book of Joshua,

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

and it is impossible that Joshua wrote this verse while he was alive.

And the Gemara answers:

That

the end of the book

Eleazar completed

finished writing

it.

And the Gemara asks:

But it is written

in the last verse of the Book of Joshua,

“And Eleazar son of Aaron died,”

and it is impossible that Eleazar wrote this verse while he was alive.

And the Gemara answers: This verse,

Phinehas completed,

finished writing

it.

We learned above in a beraita:

Samuel wrote his book.

And the Gemara asks:

But it is written

in the Book of Samuel,

“And Samuel died.”

And it is impossible that Samuel wrote this verse while he was alive.

And the Gemara answers:

That

the end of the book

he completed,

finished

Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet.

We learned above in a beraita:

David wrote the Book of Psalms

through ten elders.

And the Gemara asks:

And let him also count

“

Ethan the Ezrahite”

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

And the Gemara answers:

Rav said: Ethan the Ezrahite is Abraham,

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

And 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 roused from the east the righteous one,” and so on [and this verse refers to Abraham, as explained in Sanhedrin 108b].

And Rav learned that the one of whom it is said “from the east the righteous one” is Ethan the Ezrahite.

And the Gemara continues to challenge the beraita, which says that David wrote Psalms through ten elders:

He counts,

the tannay in the beraita counts

Moses

as one of the ten elders,

and

so

he counts Heman,

who also was one of the ten elders.

And the Gemara asks:

But Rav said: Heman is Moses.

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

And proof that Heman is Moses:

It is written here

in the Book of Psalms [chapter 88], “An instruction of

Heman.”

And it is written there,

in the Five Books of Moses, in Numbers, that the Holy One, blessed is He, said concerning Moses,

“In all My house he is trusted.”

And it is proven that Heman is Moses, because “Heman” is from the expression “trusted.”

And the Gemara answers: Even though Moses is also called “Heman,” nevertheless this is not the Heman who was among the ten elders, but

there were two Hemans!

We learned in a beraita:

Moses wrote his book, and the portion of Balaam, and

likewise he wrote the Book of

Job.

And this beraita

supports Rav Levi bar Lahma.

For Rav Levi bar Lahma said: Job was in the days of Moses.

And his proof is because

it is written here

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

“Would that”

“they would write my words.”

And it is written there,

in the Five Books of Moses [Exodus 33:16], that Moses said to the Holy One, blessed is He:

“And by what would it be known”

that I have found favor in Your eyes?

And Rav Levi learned a gzera shava from the word “would that” written in Job to the word “would that” written concerning Moses, that Job was in the days of Moses.

And the Gemara asks:

But perhaps,

Job was

in the days of Isaac, for

after all

it is written

concerning Isaac, who said to Ishmael:

“Who

perhaps

is he who hunted game?”

If so, let us compare the “would that” written in Job to the “would that” said concerning Isaac.

And the Gemara further asks:

But perhaps

Job was

in the days of Jacob,

for in his days also we find the word “would that,”

as it is written

that Jacob said to his sons:

“If so, then do this.”

And the Gemara further asks:

But perhaps,

Job was

in the days of Joseph,

for in his case too we find the word “would that,”

as it is written:

“Where

are they pasturing?”

And the Gemara answers:

It does not enter your mind.

It is impossible that Job was in another generation besides the generation of Moses our teacher.

For

after all

it is written

in Job, chapter 19, verse 23,

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

and

from the word “engraved” one may learn that Job was in Moses’ generation. For

Moses is the one who is called

who was called

“engraver,”

as it is written

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

And he saw the first for himself,”

he saw that the tribe of Gad would take 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,”

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

hidden.”

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

And the proof of this is:

It is written here

concerning Job [1:1],

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

and it is written there,

in the Five Books of Moses [Numbers 13:20], that Moses our teacher said to the spies, to explore the land:

“Is there a tree in it?”

And Rava learned by 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 was in the days of the spies.

And the Gemara asks:

Are they comparable!?

Surely

here,

concerning Job, it is written

“Uz,”

whereas

there,

concerning the spies, it is written

“tree,”

and the words are not identical, so that one may learn a gzera shava from them.

And the Gemara answers: The proof that Job was in the days of Moses is because this is how 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:

Is there

in the land of Canaan

that man

[Job]

whose years are long like a tree,

for Job lived many years,

and protects his people like a tree

that protects those sitting in its shade .

And this is what Moses said to the spies to investigate, “Is there a tree in it?”—whether Job, who protected his people, was still alive. And from this it is proven that Job was in the days of Moses.

A certain one of the scholars sat,

one of the sages sat

before

before him,

before Rav Shmuel bar Nahmani, and he sat

and was saying:

Job did not exist and was not created, but was merely a parable!

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

He said to him: Concerning you the verse says

in Job [1:1] “

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

And since it is written in the verse “was,” one cannot say that Job did not exist.

And the Gemara rejects:

If that is so,

that everywhere that the expression “was” is written, this is not a parable but certainly occurred. If so, there is a difficulty from a verse in Samuel II [chapter 12, verse 3], when the prophet Nathan 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 small ewe that he had bought, and it lived,

and it grew up with him … and it became a daughter to him.”

Did this happen?

Did this story actually occur? Surely this is not

but merely a parable,

and nevertheless the verse says “and it became.” And it is proven that even though the expression “was” is written, it is possible that it is a parable. And if so,

so too,

Job

is merely a parable

.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so

he is, that Job is nothing but a parable,

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

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar, both say

both said:

Job was among those who ascended from exile,

and his house of study was in Tiberias!

Meitivi

an objection to Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar, who maintain that Job was among those who ascended from exile, from what we learned in a beraita:

The days of the years of Job, from the time Israel entered Egypt,

when he was born,

until they left,

when he died.

And it is proven that Job lived during the period of the Egyptian exile, and was not among those who ascended from exile.

d

A case involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow:

“I am selling you all the properties of the house of Bar Sisin”,

that is, “I am selling you all the properties that I purchased from a man whose name was Bar Sisin.”

There was a certain piece of land that was called

“the house of Bar Sisin,”

there was one piece of land there that was called “the house of Bar Sisin”!

He said to him,

the seller to the buyer:

“This is not the house of Bar

Sisin; it is merely called

‘the house of Bar Sisin,’

this land I did not purchase from Bar Sisin; it is merely a name by which it is called “the house of Bar Sisin.”

They came,

the seller and the buyer,

before Rav Naḥman

to ask about their law, and

he established

Rav Naḥman that land

in the possession of the buyer,

since the seller did not prove that he had not purchased it from Bar Sisin.

Rava said

to Rav Naḥman:

But is it so that

the law is thus!?

Yet we have established:

“He who seeks to take something from his fellow—the burden of proof is upon him,”

and since the buyer is the one who comes to take the land from the seller, the obligation of proof rests upon him!?

And if so:

Rava’s statement contradicts Rava’s statement,

for regarding the inner rooms, Rava said that in a case of uncertainty the house is to be established in the possession of the buyer, and the seller is the one who seeks to take it, upon whom rests the burden of proof; whereas here Rava maintains that in a case of uncertainty the land is to be established in the possession of the seller, and the buyer is the one who seeks to take it, upon whom rests the burden of proof!?

And

there is also a difficulty

with

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

For regarding the inner rooms Rav Naḥman established the house in the possession of the seller until the buyer would bring proof of his words; whereas here Rav Naḥman maintains that in a case of uncertainty the land is to be established in the possession of the buyer!?

And we answer:

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

There,

regarding Bar Sisin—

the seller

is the one who

is standing in possession of his property

[he is the one who is established in possession of the property], and therefore the buyer is considered the one who seeks to take it, and the obligation of proof rests upon him.

Whereas

here,

regarding the inner rooms—

the buyer

is the one who

is standing in possession of his property,

for he held the outer rooms, and therefore the seller is considered the one who seeks to take it, and the obligation of proof rests upon him.

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

There,

regarding Bar Sisin—

since he said to him,

the seller, that he was selling him the properties of

“the house of Bar Sisin,”

and

indeed

this field too is called

“the house of Bar Sisin,”

“the house of Bar Sisin,”

therefore

it is incumbent upon him to reveal that it is not the house of Bar Sisin,

the burden of proof rests upon the seller that this is merely a name, and that it never belonged to Bar Sisin.

But here,

regarding the inner rooms—

let

the one in possession

be nothing more than

like one who

is holding a document

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

do we not say to him,

the one in possession, when the seller claims regarding the document that it is forged:

“Validate your document and arise in my property,”

[do we not say to him, “Validate your document and descend to the properties that you purchased”]!?

And we too shall say to him: “Validate your presumptive possession and descend to the properties that you purchased”!

A case involving

a certain

man

who said to his fellow,

who had established presumptive possession in his house:

“What are you doing in this house

[what are you doing in my house]”!?

He said to him,

the one in possession to the protester:

“I purchased it from you, and I used it for the years of presumptive possession,

[I purchased it from you, and I held it for three years], and I am trustworthy in my claim”!

He said to him,

the protester to the one in possession: “Your presumptive possession is not presumptive possession, because during the time that you held it

I was in the distant markets

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

He said to him,

the one in possession to the protester:

“But I have witnesses that every year you would come for thirty days,

for I have witnesses that every year—during the three years that I dwelled in your house—you were here for thirty days, and you did not protest during them], and surely during this time you learned that I was holding your house.”

He said to him,

the protester to the one in possession: “Indeed, I was here, and I was living in another house, and I did not know at all about your presumptive possession, because during those

thirty days I was occupied in the marketplace

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

Rava said:

Indeed, his presumptive possession is not presumptive possession, because

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

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

A case involving

a certain man who said to his fellow,

who had established presumptive possession in his field for fewer than three years

“What are you doing in this land,

[what are you doing in my land]”!?

He said to him,

the one in possession to the protester:

“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]”!