Talmud sobre Baba Batra 3:15

Rebbi Zeïra asked before Rebbi Yasa: If he intended to let them acquire from the boundary strip¹⁶Every field is surrounded by a strip, mostly of grass, usually slightly elevated over the cultivated area. On this strip one may walk between fields and also deposit agricultural implements. Rebbi Zeïra asks what is the rule if some grain grew on the boundary strip and the owner of the field wants to fulfill his duty by abandoning this grain which cannot usually be harvested. Rebbi Yasa (Rebbi Assi in the Babli) avoided answering, perhaps because he did not know the answer.
There is a similar problem in Baba Batra, dealing with real estate left by a convert to Judaism who failed to start a Jewish family. Since by conversion the convert severed his ties to his former family, in the absence of a will his property becomes ownerless at his death and can be acquired by actual possession. Then the question is whether two adjacent fields can be acquired if one performs an act of possession (such as weeding) on one of them. In the Yerushalmi (Baba Batra 3:1, fol. 13d), R. Yasa states in the name of R. Joḥanan that if one weeded on one of two adjacent fields with the intention of thereby acquiring both fields but did not have the explicit intent to acquire the boundary strip also, he acquired only the field he weeded but no more. Then it is reported that R. Zeïra asked R. Yasa about somebody working on the boundary strip only (whether he would acquire both fields), and R. Yasa avoided answering. In the Babli (Baba Batra 55a), R. Assi states in the name of R. Joḥanan that boundary strip and ḥaẓab are dividers in respect to the property of a convert but not for peah whereas Ravin (Rebbi Abun) declares in the name of R. Joḥanan that it is not a divider for peah. For the Yerushalmi, R. Assi himself was not sure whether R. Joḥanan followed the opinion ascribed to himself in the Babli, or that ascribed to R. Abun.? He avoided answering him. The opinions of Rebbi Yasa are contradictory since we have stated there (Mishnah 3:2): “The sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba about someone who sowed dill or mustard in three places¹⁷The Mishnah deals with someone who spot-harvests his field, cutting at separate places and letting the rest grow for an extended period of time. Rebbi Aqiba requires that each time and at each place peah be given, but the sages require only one peah for the whole field, except for (expensive) spices..” (The Mishnah means: dill in three places or mustard in three places.) Samuel said, because the first of them does not wait for the last¹⁸Obviously, one plot is harvested at one time; otherwise, there would be no obligation for peah. Samuel asserts that spice plants can be harvested at greatly varying times.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they are usually sown in separate beds¹⁹Spices are never grown in large fields since they belong to intensive agriculture.. And here he says so²⁰In fact, he refuses to say what he should say, viz., that the boundary strip is never sown intentionally and therefore cannot be counted as peah.? It is obvious for him that it separates²¹This is the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli.. What he could not decide is whether it does become sanctified as peah or maybe it does not become sanctified²²Since peah is exempt from terumah and tithes, the status of the grain growing on the boundary strip remains in limbo.! Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: If someone gave peah from one field for another one, it does not acquire holiness. One understands that this means even the boundary strip²³Again supporting the opinion ascribed to R. Abun in the Babli. (In the Babli, Rabin is reputed to give the correct interpretations of sentences of R. Joḥanan.).

Rav said, the essence of ḥalîṣah²⁷As the paragraph shows, this needs a semantic clarification since up to now, the word ḥalîṣah designated the entire ceremony by which the widow is freed to marry outside the family. But here, the word designates the action by which the sister-in-law slips the levir’s shoe off his foot, which must be followed by her spitting in front of the levir (Deut. 25:9). Rav insists that the widow’s action is invalid if it does not start with untying the shoelaces.
In the Babli, 102a, Rav insists that the deciding act is slipping the shoe off the levir’s heel. is the untying of the shoelace. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Zeriqan turns to it in the name of Rav: The words of the Sages: If she slips off but did not spit, or spat but did not take off, nothing was done unless she slips off and spits²⁸Cf. Mishnah 3.. Even though Rav said “unless she slips off and spits” he agrees that the essence of slipping off is untying the shoelaces.

MISHNAH: One who contracts with another for a field¹⁷The nature of the field was not specified in the lease., if it is an irrigated field or an orchard and the source dried up or the orchard was cut down, he¹⁸The tenant. This Mishnah does not apply to sharecroppers. may not deduct from his leasing fee. If he said, this irrigated field or this orchard shall be leased to me¹⁹The nature of the field was specified in the lease. and the source dried up or the orchard was cut down, he may deduct from his leasing fee.

MISHNAH: One fertilizes and hoes in melon and gourd fields until the New Year; the same applies to irrigated fields. One trims, removes¹²The leaves, as explained in the Halakhah. According to Maimonides, R. Simeon permits this particular activity also in the Sabbatical year. However, it seems that R. Simeon permits only the removal of leaves from bunches of grapes if otherwise the grapes would rot; see the Halakhah., dusts, and smokes until the New Year. Rebbi Simeon said, one may even remove a leaf from a bunch in the Sabbatical year.
One may remove stones²⁵From his field. until the New Year. One cuts²⁶Really “nibbles”, in an unsystematic way. “Pruning” means eliminating unwanted new shoots, “shaping” means eliminating dead wood., prunes, and shapes until the New Year. Rebbi Joshua says, like the pruning and shaping of the fifth year²⁷When there are no time limits on any agricultural work., so is that of the sixth. Rebbi Simeon says, any time that I may work the tree I may shape it.

MISHNAH: A woman who said, accept my bill of divorce for me, needs two groups of witnesses⁴⁸Since a divorce is a public act it must be executed in front of at least two witnesses. The agent certainly needs two witnesses for the delivery since the woman herself must receive the bill in front of two witnesses. It is only natural that the agent needs two witnesses to legitimize his status (or be appointed by a duly witnessed document.); two who say that she appointed in their presence and two who say that in their presence he received it and tore it up⁴⁹It is not necessary that the bill be torn up after delivery; this clause is added only to show that the divorce is valid even if the document never reaches the wife because it was torn up after delivery. (This has nothing to do with current rabbinic practice to cut up the bill of divorce after delivery in order to prevent outsiders from questioning the validity of the document.), even if the first ones are the latter ones, or one of the first together with one of the latter and a third person is associated with them⁵⁰There do not have to be four different people; there may also be two or three.. A preliminarily married adolescent girl⁵¹Between the ages of 12 years and 12 years and six months; cf. Nedarim 10:1, Note 1. Since she is over 12 years of age, she is able to act in law. But since she is not definitively married, she is still under her father’s authority., or her father, can accept her bill of divorce. Rebbi Jehudah says, no two hands can acquire together; only her father alone can accept her bill of divorce. Any female⁵²This statement is independent of the preceding one; it deals with an insane woman or an underage girl who was definitively married and, therefore, is emancipated from her father’s power. If she is too young to understand the meaning of divorce and the need to keep the document until she has collected all the monies due her, she cannot be divorced and the husband cannot escape the obligation to feed and house her. who cannot take care of her bill of divorce cannot be divorced.
If an underage girl said, accept the bill of divorce for me, it is no valid bill until the bill of divorce reaches her hand. Therefore, if the husband wants to retract he can retract since an underage person cannot appoint an agent. But if her father said to [an agent]: Go and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce, if [the husband] wants to retract he cannot retract.⁸⁰This was explained in the preceding Halakhah.

“He is not trustworthy” if he did not eat the years of legal claim³⁵If a person can prove three years of undisturbed possession of real estate and claims legal acquisition (by sale, inheritance, or gift), the court has to confirm him in possession since documents have to be kept only for three years. from it. But if he ate the years of legal claim from it, he is trustworthy if [the second person’s] father did not die in possession. But if [the second person’s] father died in possession, he is [not] trustworthy³⁶The three years of undisturbed possession count only if the person from whom he acquired it was alive during these years since the heirs might not be knowledgeable enough of the details of the deceased’s property to exercise their duty to object to the squatter’s occupation.. ³⁷Except for the last sentence, the following is Halakhah Baba Batra 3:4 in a different editing. As the following: Reuben ate from a field³⁸Undisturbed for 3 years. claiming that it was his. Simeon brought witnesses that his father died in possession. One removes [the field] from Reuben and hands the title to Simeon. Reuben came back and brought witnesses that [Simeon’s] father did not die in possession. Rebbi Naḥman ben Jacob³⁹He should be called Rav Naḥman ben Jacob, in the Babli simply called Rav Naḥman, chief judge and highest authority in money matters in Babylonia. said, I took it from Reuben, I am returning it to Reuben⁴⁰If there are two against two witnesses and all four testimonies hold up under cross examination, there is no testimony and Simeon has no claim. The identical statement appears in the Babli, Baba Batra 31b.. That is what the rabbis here think. The rabbis there say, from the time it was removed, by clear testimony it was removed⁴¹Since (Deut. 19:15) “by the testimony of two or three witnesses the case shall be confirmed”, Reuben’s witnesses cannot be accepted unless they prove that Simeon’s witnesses were lying.
It is difficult to see who “the rabbis from there” are since Rab Naḥman was the authority in Babylonia and the Babli (loc. cit.) decides explicitly that later claims are admissible in money matters.. So the rabbis here say, from the time she married, by clear testimony she married⁴²This really belongs to the next paragraph, about a woman whose husband has disappeared and she remarried on the testimony of two witnesses that her husband had died; when two witnesses come and say he is alive, they are not listened to.. Rebbi Yose said, the rabbis there agree that if during the first proceedings two [witnesses] say that his father died in possession and two say, he did not die in possession, Reuben’s claim is upheld⁴³If during court proceedings there are contradictory statements, none of which can be shown to be false, there is no proof and the claim of legal possession cannot be denied..

MISHNAH: Sterile onions and Egyptian beans from which water was withheld thirty days before the New Year are tithed for the past [year] and may be kept in the Sabbatical year⁵⁸They may be treated as private property of the farmer and be harvested during the Sabbatical year. If tithes are given for this crop from another place, it must be from produce of the preceding year.; otherwise they are forbidden in the Sabbatical year⁵⁹Forbidden to be harvested and stored as seeds but permitted to be taken by everybody. and are tithed for the coming year. For those from a ba‘al field⁹⁴An unirrigated field that must be watered by hand if used for vegetables. The term seems to be taken from pagan neighbors since Ba‘al is the Semitic rain god, equivalent of the Greek Zeus. The Tosephta (Note 83) makes it explicit that the first rule speaks of fields irrigated by a permanent installation., if one withheld water for two periods⁸³Tosephta 2:4 is practically identical with Mishnah 9, except that in the case of ba‘al fields, the Tosephta states that for the field to qualify as seed field, one must withhold two (or three) מריעות, instead of עונות in the Mishnah. The Tosephta is partially quoted in Ma‘serot 4:5 (fol. 51b), where the reading is מודייות [two] modii.
R. Abraham ben David (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:10) deduces from the Mishnah that מוריות, מריעות are instances of irrigation; R. S. Lieberman reads the words as derived from מרביעות “fertilizations,” but it might be better to take the word from מרויות “waterings”. בעל fields of produce other than grains, while not irrigated permanently, are watered occasionally (Mishnah 9).
Maimonides, followed by the commentators of his Code and J. Levy, translates מורביות (or מרביות in the Rome ms.) as “trimmings”; that meaning is found in the Babli (Sukkah 45a, Tamid29a). R. Abraham ben David wonders why Maimonides in his Code follows an unclear Tosephta instead of a clear Mishnah., the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say three.

MISHNAH: One does not raise sheep and goats in the Land of Israel⁹¹Since they eat anything they see, if raised near agricultural land they would eat any crop and any sapling and their owner would by necessity become a robber, robbing farmers of their crops. but one raises them in Syria⁹²Which has plenty of empty spaces. and in the non-arable tracts⁹³מִדְבָּר, from Aramaic דבר “to lead”, is a place where sheep are lead to graze because it is not agricultural land. For such a “desert” in a non-desert region cf. Gen. 37:22; the word is also used for the grasses which sheep find in the prairie, Targum Onqelos to Ex. 3:1. in the Land of Israel. One does not raise chickens in Jerusalem because of the sacrifices⁹⁴Chickens were always kept in the open. They dig up all kinds of things; in Jerusalem they might dig up the remains of a human bone. This is incompatible with the duty to eat “simple sancta” all over the walled city of Jerusalem., nor may Cohanim in the Land of Israel do so because of purities⁹⁵They have to be pure in order to eat heave; chickens would present too great a risk.. A Jew may not raise pigs, and a person should not raise a dog unless it is tied by a chain. One does not set traps for pigeons unless thirty stadia⁹⁶A parasang (5523m). Since a parasang in the Talmudim is usually identified with 4 mil, this would make the mil 1281m and the underlying cubit 64cm. It is assumed that at this distance no pigeons which are private property can be found. distant from any settlement.

“If he covered it appropriately.” How much does it have to be covered? It shall be as we have stated there: “That [it can withstand] a truck full of stones driving over it.⁷⁹Mishnah Bava batra 3:12; cf. Bikkurim 1:1, Notes 19–20.”