Bava Batra 3a — the Talmud in English

Now the Gemara returns to the matter of the interpretation of “partition.”

Another formulation says it:

another wording says that this is how the course of the discussion concerning the partition was [and not as the first wording said]:

They thought:

at first they thought,

What is “partition”? —

Division:

separation. And as the verse says,

as it is written

[Numbers 31:43]:

“And the partition of the assembly was.”

And since they wanted

to divide,

they build

they

the wall

of stones

against their will.

Apparently:

it is proved from this that

visual exposure is considered damage!

the Gemara asks:

But say

another interpretation:

What is “partition”? —

a wall:

a wall of stones.

And as is proved from the beraita,

for it was taught: If the partition of a vineyard was breached, he says to him: “Fence it!” If it was breached again, he says to him: “Fence it!” If the owner of the field despaired of it

the owner of the field

and did not fence it, it has thereby become consecrated, and he is liable

he

for it.

And from this we infer:

and the reason

and the reason that they divide with a stone wall is because

they wanted

they stipulated between themselves to divide it with a stone wall.

Here:

this implies that if

they did not want, he is not compelled

to build a wall, but merely a fence.

Apparently:

it is proved from this that

visual exposure is not considered damage!

But the Gemara returns and asks:

If so:

if it is as you say, that partition means a wall, why did the Mishna repeat and say

“They build the wall”?

But

“They build it” should have been required of it:

the tan­ nay should have taught this, since it is speaking about the wall!

But the Gemara also raises a difficulty against the first possibility:

Rather, what will you say:

what do you say, according to the first possibility,

division?

There is also a difficulty against it: why does the tan­ nay teach

“who wanted to make a partition”? “Who wanted to divide” should have been required of it!

For their agreement is required concerning the division itself, and not concerning the making of the partition.

And the Gemara resolves the first possibility:

The tan­ nay used ordinary speech.

As people say:

as people say:

“Come, let us make a division”:

come and let us make a division. They do not say, “Come, let us divide,” as would follow from the rules of grammar.

But it is still difficult:

And if:

and if we say that

visual exposure is considered damage,

then

why specifically:

why did the tan­ nay state

“wanted”?

For

even if they did not want:

even if he did not agree,

also:

he should likewise be compelled to build!

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Our Mishna

speaks

when it has no legal measure for division:

when it does not contain eight cubits, in which case they do not compel division, even when there is visual exposure.

And it is when they wanted:

if they agreed to divide, then they compel [them] to build a wall.

The Gemara asks: If so,

what does it teach us:

what did the tan­ nay come to teach us,

that when it does not contain:

when it does not contain

a legal measure for division, when they wanted:

if they agree,

they divide:

then they divide.

But

we already learned it:

did we not already learn this in an explicit Mishna [below, page 11]:

When

do they not divide the courtyard until it contains four cubits for this one and four cubits for that one?

When the two of them do not want

to divide, but only one of them does.

But when the two of them want

to divide,

even less than this

than this measure,

they divide!

And the Gemara answers:

If from there:

if we were to learn it only from there,

I would say:

I would say,

even less than this

he is not compelled to divide except

with merely a fence

but not with a stone wall.

It teaches us:

therefore it teaches us

here

the tan­ nay, that he compels him to build

a wall.

And the Gemara asks again:

And let it teach this:

why should it teach only our Mishna, in which a wall is explicitly mentioned,

and let it not teach that

let it not teach the Mishna below at all!?

And the Gemara answers:

The latter clause

of that Mishna

was necessary for it:

the tan­ nay there needed to teach us:

and sacred writings:

a Torah scroll that is in one volume, and likewise Prophets and Writings that were written on a sheet like a Torah scroll, and belonged to two people,

even though both of them want

to divide,

they may not divide

because it is disgraceful to divide them by cutting the books into two parts.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the law itself:

But if they “wanted,” what of it!?

What is there in the fact that they wanted,

to retract from it:

that he should retract, since he did not become obligated.

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

it is speaking

when they performed an acquisition from him.

They made a kinyan concerning his undertaking. And once they made the kinyan, he cannot retract.

The Gemara now brings another version of the exchange concerning “wanted.”

Another formulation.

This is how he challenged him:

Before it teaches us:

before the tan­ nay teaches us its law

when it does not contain

in the courtyard

a legal measure for division, and it is when they wanted

and in a situation where they wanted,

let it teach us:

let it teach us its law

when it contains

in the courtyard

a legal measure for division:

that he can compel him to divide,

and even though they did not want —

behold, they divide.

And the answer is:

If it had taught us:

if the tan­ nay had taught us its law

when it contains a legal measure for division, and even though they did not want, I would say:

I would say that in a courtyard

that does not contain a legal measure for division, even if they also wanted

also

not

do they compel him to build a wall, but only a fence.

It teaches us; therefore the tan­ nay came to teach us that they compel him to build a wall.

But the Gemara is astonished:

Can you really say this!?

Can you say so?

But it teaches in the latter clause

and yet we learned at the end of the Mishna:

When

the division depends upon his agreement?

When the two of them do not want

to divide

. But when the two of them want —

they shall divide.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not:

is it not meant that they divide

with a wall?!

And how did you entertain the thought that they divide with a fence?

And the Gemara rejects:

No.

Rather,

with merely a fence.

And only if they wanted do they divide with a wall.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Let it teach this:

why should the tan­ nay teach only our Mishna, which obligates him to build a wall,

and not

teach this

the other Mishna [on page 11]?

And the Gemara answers:

The latter clause was necessary for it.

The end of that Mishna was needed by the tan­ nay to teach:

and with sacred writings, even though both of them want

to divide them,

they may not divide, because of the dishonor of the sacred writings:

And now the Gemara returns to the continuation of the discussion according to the first formulation.

And the Gemara discusses:

In what did you establish the Mishna:

in what did you establish our Mishna?

When it does not contain a legal measure for division.

And if so, there is a difficulty:

If:

if it is speaking

when it does not contain a legal measure for division, when they wanted:

even when they wanted,

what of it? Let them retract!

That they should retract?!

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

it is speaking

when they acquired

from them.

And since they performed an acquisition, he cannot retract.

But the Gemara returns and raises a difficulty:

But if they acquired from them, what of it!?

What is there in this, since

it is merely an acquisition of words.

For an acquisition by exchange takes effect only upon something tangible, such as something that is purchased or given as a gift, or a lien upon land. But not upon an agreement of words alone.

And the Gemara answers:

It is speaking

when they acquired from them according to directions.

For example, one of them received the eastern portion, and his fellow has no portion in it; and the second received the western portion, and the first has no portion in it. If so, the acquisition takes effect upon something tangible.

And another answer:

Rav Ashi said:

it is speaking

for example, when this one went

one of the two partners in the courtyard, after they agreed on a division,

into his own and took possession. And

this one went

into his own and took possession.

For each one performed an acquisition through possession, for example, he dug somewhat into the ground. And land is acquired through possession, once they agreed on the division. We learned in the Mishna:

“In a place where they are accustomed to build, and so forth”:

And the Gemara explains each of the types of stones mentioned in the Mishna:

Unhewn stone: stones that are not smoothed:

stones that are not smoothed, which were not shaped by chiseling.

Cut stone: stones that are smoothed.

Smoothed, chiseled, and leveled stones. And as it is written:

“All these were precious stones, according to the measure of cut stone,” and so forth.

Half-bricks: half-bricks.

A half-brick is an ariach. A brick is three handbreadths, and an ariach is one and a half handbreadths. And this is how a wall of half-bricks is built: an ariach on this side and an ariach on that side, with a space of one handbreadth between them, into which they place mortar in order to join them.

Bricks: bricks.

A complete brick, which they place along the thickness of the wall, and its width is three handbreadths.

Rabba, the son of Rava, said to

the son of Rava

to Rav Ashi: From where

do we know

that unhewn stone means stones that are not smoothed,

whose width is five handbreadths,

and this extra handbreadth

the sixth, additional handbreadth, is

for the projection of the corners:

designated for the protrusion of the ends of the stones outward, since they are not smooth?

Perhaps

the unhewn stone is only

half of cut stone,

half of cut stone

it is, and this extra handbreadth

the additional handbreadth

is for between the rows:

it is placed between the rows. That is, a row of unhewn stone here and a row here, with a handbreadth of mortar between them.

As we say

as we say:

half-bricks —

half-bricks. Bricks —

bricks. And this extra handbreadth,

the additional handbreadth in half-bricks,

is for between the rows,

between the rows it is.

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

And according to your reasoning

and according to your reasoning [according to your method],

half-bricks,

which are

half-bricks, from where do we know!? Rather:

necessarily,

it is a received tradition:

it is a tradition that the Sages received concerning this, and upon it they rely. If so,

unhewn stone also,

this which is

stones that are not smoothed, it is a received tradition:

this is what the masters of the Talmud received!

But some say that the question was asked in the opposite manner:

There are those who say:

there are those who say that the question was asked as follows:

Rav Aḥa, the son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: From where do you know that these half-bricks are half-bricks,

two half-bricks across the thickness of the wall,

and this extra handbreadth,

and the additional handbreadth is designated

for between the rows,

between the rows?

Perhaps

it should be interpreted otherwise:

What are half-bricks? —

stones that are not smoothed,

stones that are not smoothed,

and this extra handbreadth,

and the additional handbreadth is

for the projection of the corners.

Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, unhewn stone,

which are

stones that are not smoothed, from where do we know?

Rather, it is a received tradition. Here too,

here also

it is a received tradition.

Abaye said: Infer from this: every “between the rows”

every “between the rows” has a width of

one handbreadth.

Therefore, one who undertakes to build a wall for his fellow must leave one handbreadth between the rows.

And these words

this matter applies

with mortar,

when he fills the spaces with mortar.

But

if he fills the space between the rows

with rikhsa,

thin stones mixed with mortar,

it requires more

he must leave between the rows more than one handbreadth.

And there are those who say

and there are those who say the opposite:

these words

with rikhsa

if he fills it with rikhsa, one handbreadth is required.

But with mortar,

with mortar alone,

it does not require so much

it does not require so much, and less than one handbreadth is sufficient.

And now the Gemara discusses the relationship between the thickness of the wall and its height:

Does this mean

from what was said in our Mishna concerning cut stone—that this one gives two and a half handbreadths and that one gives two and a half handbreadths—and at its end we learned that they compel him to build four cubits, it implies

that in a

wall built of

cut stone

the ratio is:

for every four cubits of height

of the wall

, if its width is five, it stands.

If the width of the wall is five handbreadths, it can stand.

If not, it does not stand.

But if this ratio between the height and the width does not exist, it cannot stand.

And the Gemara asks:

But the Amah Traksin,

which was the wall that separated between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies in the Temple that Solomon built,

which was

thirty cubits high,

thirty cubits, and was made of hewn stones, as it is written [I Kings 5:31]: “hewn stones,”

and it did not have width,

and its width was not

but six handbreadths,

six handbreadths,

and it stood

and nevertheless remained standing!

But this wall does not have the ratio of five handbreadths of width to four cubits of height!

And the Gemara answers: This ratio is not a fixed ratio between every height and every width; rather, it was stated only with regard to a wall four cubits high, for in order to make it stand, a width of five handbreadths is required. But with regard to the Amah Traksin,

since there is an extra handbreadth,

since there is an additional handbreadth in the width of the wall [six handbreadths instead of five],

it stands,

it could remain standing. For because of the additional handbreadth in the width of the wall, it could be made much higher. And it is not necessary to follow the ratio of five handbreadths of width for every four cubits of height.

And since the Gemara mentioned this wall, it discusses its matter:

And in the Second Temple, what is the reason that they did not make an Amah Traksin?

What is the reason that they did not make a wall to separate between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, but rather a curtain? And as we learned in Yoma [51b]: “There were two curtains there, and between them was a cubit.”

And the Gemara answers:

When it stands,

when this high wall stands according to the ratio of its height to its thickness,

it stands at thirty,

it stands only at a height of thirty cubits. But

higher, it does not stand.

It does not stand at a height greater than this with a width of six handbreadths. And in the Second Temple, the height of the Sanctuary was more than thirty cubits.

And from where do we know this,

from where do we know that its height was more than thirty?

For it is written

in the Book of Haggai [2:9]:

“Greater will be the glory of this latter House than that of the former.”

And in what way would it be greater?

They disagreed,

Rav and Shmuel. And some say,

and there are those who say:

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar.

One said: In its construction.

For the height of the Second Temple was forty cubits .