Bava Batra 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara now returns to the matter of the interpretation of the word “partition.”

Alternatively, some say it:

Another version explains that this was the course of the discussion concerning the partition [and not as the first version stated]:

They assumed:

At first they assumed,

What is the meaning of partition? —

Division:

A separation. And this is as the verse states,

as it is written [Numbers 31:43]:

“And the partition of the assembly was.”

“And it was the portion of the congregation.”

And since they wished

to divide,

they build

—

the wall

of stones—

against their will.

Apparently:

This proves that

visual damage is considered damage!

The Gemara asks:

And say:

Offer another interpretation:

What is the meaning of partition? —

A wall:

A wall of stones.

As is demonstrated by the beraita,

as it was taught: If the partition of a vineyard was breached, one says to him: Fence it! If it was breached again, one says to him: Fence it! If the owner of the field despaired of it

and did not fence it,

the produce has thereby become consecrated, and he is liable

—

for its responsibility.

And we may infer from this:

And the reason

that they divide with a stone wall is because

they wished

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

This

indicates that if

they did not wish, he is not compelled

to build a wall, but only a mere fence.

Apparently:

This proves that

visual damage is not considered damage!

But the Gemara returns and asks:

If so:

If, as you say, partition means a wall, why did the Mishna then say

“they build the wall”?

After all,

it should have said, “they build it,”

which is what the tanna should have taught, since he is speaking about the wall!

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

Rather, what will you say—according to the first possibility,

that partition means

division?

There is also a difficulty with it: Why did the tanna teach

“who wished to make a partition”? He should have said, “who wished to divide”!

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

The Gemara resolves the first possibility:

The tanna used an expression current in ordinary speech.

As people say:

As people say,

“Come, let us make a division,”

meaning, “Come, let us divide.” They do not say, “Come, let us divide,” in accordance with the rules of grammar.

But there is still a difficulty:

And if

we say that

visual damage is considered damage,

then

why specifically

did the tanna state

“who wished”?

After all,

even if they did not wish,

even if he did not agree,

also,

he should likewise be obligated to build!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Our Mishna

is speaking

when it does not have the requisite measure for division,

when it is not eight cubits, in which case they are not compelled to divide, even when there is visual damage.

And it is when they wished—

if they agreed to divide, they are then obligated to build a wall.

The Gemara asks: If so,

what does it teach us—

what was the tanna coming to teach us—

that when it does not have

the requisite measure,

when they wished,

if they agree,

they divide,

they divide then?

After all,

we already learned it:

Was this not already taught in an explicit Mishna [below, on page 11]:

When

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

When neither of them wishes

to divide, but only one of them does.

But when both of them wish

to divide,

even less than this,

than this measure,

they divide!

The Gemara answers:

If we had learned it only from there,

if we derived the matter only from that source,

I would have said

that

even less than this

does not compel him to divide except

with a mere fence,

but not with a stone wall.

It teaches us:

Therefore the tanna teaches us

here

that he compels him to build

a wall.

The Gemara asks again:

Let him teach this,

why did he not teach only our Mishna, in which a wall is explicitly mentioned,

and not teach that

—why teach the following Mishna at all!?

The Gemara answers:

The latter clause

of that Mishna

was necessary for him

—the tanna there had to teach us:

And with regard to sacred writings,

a Torah scroll written as one scroll, and likewise Prophets and Writings written on a scroll like a Torah scroll, which belonged to two people,

even though both of them wish

to divide them,

they may not divide them,

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

But the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the law itself:

But if they “wished,” what difference does that make!?

What is accomplished by their having wished,

for him to retract,

for him to change his mind, since he had not become obligated?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

It is speaking

where they performed an acquisition from him.

They performed a kinyan concerning his undertaking. Once they performed the kinyan, he cannot retract.

The Gemara now presents another version of the discussion concerning “they wished.”

Another version.

This is how the question was posed to him:

Before he teaches us,

before the tanna teaches us his law

when it does not have

—the courtyard—

the requisite measure for division, and they wished,

in a case where they wished to divide,

let him teach us,

let him teach us his law

when it does have

—the courtyard—

the requisite measure for division,

so that he can compel the other to divide,

and even though they did not wish—

they divide.

The answer is:

If he had taught us,

if the tanna had taught us his law

when it has the requisite measure for division, and even though they did not wish, I would have said

that in a courtyard

that does not have the requisite measure for division, even if they also wished,

also

not

would he be obligated to build a wall, but only a fence.

It teaches us, therefore, that the tanna came to teach us that he is obligated to build a wall.

But the Gemara expresses astonishment:

Can you really say that!?

Can you really say so?

But the latter clause teaches,

for we learned at the end of the Mishna:

When

is the division dependent upon his agreement?

When neither of them wishes

to divide

. But when both of them wish—

they divide.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

the intention that they divide

with a wall?!

How could you have considered that they divide with a fence?

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

with a mere fence.

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Let him teach this,

why did the tanna not teach only our Mishna, which obligates him to build a wall,

and not

teach this,

the other Mishna [on page 11]?

The Gemara answers:

The latter clause was necessary for him.

The end of that Mishna was necessary for the tanna to teach:

And with regard to sacred writings, even though both of them wish

to divide them,

they may not divide them, because of the disgrace to sacred writings.

The Gemara now returns to the continuation of the discussion according to the first version.

The Gemara discusses:

With regard to what did you establish the Mishna,

what is the case in which you established our Mishna?

When it does not have the requisite measure for division.

And if so, there is a difficulty:

If,

if the case is

when it does not have the requisite measure for division, when they wished,

even when they wished,

what difference does that make? Let them retract!

Let them change their minds?!

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

It is speaking

where they performed an acquisition

from them.

Since they performed an acquisition, he cannot retract.

But the Gemara returns and raises a difficulty:

But if they performed an acquisition from them, what difference does that make!?

What is accomplished by this? After all,

it is merely an acquisition of words.

An acquisition through exchange takes effect only with regard to something substantive, such as an object that is purchased or given as a gift, or a lien on real estate. But it does not take effect with regard to an agreement consisting merely of words.

The Gemara answers:

It is speaking

where they performed an acquisition from them concerning the directions.

For example, one of them received the eastern portion, in which his fellow has no share, and the other received the western portion, in which the first has no share. Therefore, the acquisition takes effect with regard to something substantive.

And there is another answer:

Rav Ashi said:

It is speaking

in a case where this one went,

one of the two partners in the courtyard, after they agreed to divide,

into his portion and took possession. And this one

went

into his portion and took possession.

Each of them performed an acquisition through possession, for example by digging somewhat into the ground. Land is acquired through possession once they have agreed to the division. We learned in the Mishna:

“In a place where the custom is to build, and so on”:

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

Unhewn stone: stones that are not smoothed,

stones that have not been squared through hewing.

Hewn stone: stones that are smoothed.

Stones that are smoothed, hewn, and leveled. As it is written:

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

Half-bricks: half-bricks.

A ariaḥ is half a brick. A full brick is three handbreadths, and an ariaḥ is one and a half handbreadths. This is how a wall of half-bricks is constructed: one ariaḥ on this side and one ariaḥ on that side, with a space of one handbreadth between them, into which mortar is placed to join them.

Bricks: full bricks.

A complete brick, placed along the thickness of the wall, whose width is three handbreadths.

Rabba, son of Rava, said

—Rava’s son—

to Rav Ashi: From where

do we know

that unhewn stone means stones that are not smoothed,

whose width is five handbreadths,

and that this extra handbreadth

the sixth, additional handbreadth, is

for the projecting corners,

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

Perhaps

unhewn stone is only

half of hewn stone,

half of hewn stone

it is, and this extra handbreadth

this additional handbreadth is

for between the rows.

It is placed between the rows. That is, there is a row of unhewn stone on this side and a row on that side, with a handbreadth of mortar between them.

As we say,

as we say:

Half-bricks—

half-bricks. Full bricks—

full bricks. And this extra handbreadth

the additional handbreadth in the case of half-bricks is

for between the rows,

between the rows.

Rav Ashi said

—Rav Ashi—

And according to your reasoning,

according to your method,

half-bricks,

which are

half-bricks, from where do we know this? Rather,

it must be that

it is received tradition,

a tradition received by the Sages, upon which they rely. If so,

unhewn stone as well,

that which is

stones that are not smoothed, is known by received tradition,

for so the masters of the Talmud received it!

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

Some say

that the question was posed as follows:

Rav Aḥa, 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

the additional handbreadth is intended

for between the rows,

between the rows?

Perhaps

it should be interpreted differently:

What are half-bricks?—

stones that are not smoothed,

stones that are not smoothed,

and this extra handbreadth

the additional handbreadth is

for the projecting corners.

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

which consists of

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

Rather, it is received tradition. Here too,

here as well,

it is received tradition.

Abaye said: Learn from this that every space between 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 this applies

to these matters

when using mortar,

when the gaps are filled with mortar.

But

if he fills the space between the rows

with stone-and-mortar fill,

thin stones mixed with mortar,

more is required,

he must leave more than one handbreadth between the rows.

And some say

the reverse:

This applies

with stone-and-mortar fill:

if he fills it with stone-and-mortar fill, one handbreadth is required.

But with mortar,

with mortar alone,

not so much is required,

it is unnecessary to leave so much, and less than one handbreadth is sufficient.

The Gemara now discusses the relationship between the wall’s thickness and its height:

Does this mean

that from what our Mishna states concerning hewn stone—“this one gives two and a half handbreadths, and that one gives two and a half handbreadths”—and from what we learned at its end, that they compel him to build it four cubits, it follows

that in

a wall built of

hewn stone,

the ratio is

for every four cubits of height

of the wall

, if its width is five handbreadths, it stands.

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

If not, it does not stand.

But if this ratio between height and width is not maintained, it cannot stand.

And the Gemara asks:

But what of the Amah Traksin,

the wall that separated the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies in the Temple built by Solomon,

which was

thirty cubits high,

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

yet it did not have a width

and its width was not

more than six handbreadths,

six handbreadths,

and it stood

and nevertheless remained standing!

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

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

since there was an extra handbreadth,

since the wall was one handbreadth wider [six handbreadths instead of five],

it stood

it was able to remain standing. Because of the additional handbreadth in the wall’s width, it could be raised considerably higher. It was not necessary to follow the ratio of five handbreadths in width for every four cubits of height.

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

And the Gemara answers:

When it stands,

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

it stands at thirty,

it stands only when it is thirty cubits high. But

higher, it does not stand.

It cannot stand at a height greater than this when its width is six handbreadths. And in the Second Temple, the height of the Sanctuary was greater than thirty cubits.

And from where do we know this,

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

As it is written

in the book of Haggai [2:9]:

“The glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the first.”

And in what way would it be greater?

They disagree:

Rav and Shmuel. And some say,

and some say:

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar.

One said: In its construction.

For the height of the Second Temple was forty cubits .