Rav Huna bought land from a gentile, but after he paid for the land and before a document was written, another Jew came and acquired the land through chazaka, by plowing a bit in the field. Rav Nachman ruled as per Shmuel’s ruling that the land belongs to the other Jew. Rav Huna challenged Rav Nachman by suggesting that if Rav Nachman were to hold by Shmuel, then he should also hold by Shmuel’s other ruling that if one plows in an ownerless field, one only acquires the area where one plowed. However, Rav Nachman responded that on that issue he holds like Rav Huna himself who held like Rav that the entire field belongs to the one who plowed, even if one plowed in a very small area. Rabba quoted three laws he heard from Ukvan bar Nechemia the exilarch in the name of Shmuel. The first is that dina d’mlachuta dina, that the law of the land is the law. The second and third are based on the first. In Persia, a chazaka can be created on land if one lives on a property for forty years. The commentaries disagree about the relevance of this halakha in Jewish law. If the king seizes the property of one who does not pay the land tax and sells it to another Jew, the sale is valid, as that is the law of the land. There is a debate about whether this applies only to land seized from those who did not pay the land tax or also to those who did not pay the head tax. If there is a border or a sea quill plant in the middle of a field, this is considered a separation for various laws. However, there is a debate whether the separation is only for the purposes of acquiring land that was ownerless, or also for pea’h and ritual impurity, and possibly also for laws of carrying on Shabbat. The Gemara explains the halakhic relevance of a separation between fields for pea’h, ritual impurity, and Shabbat.
Bava Batra 55
Share this shiur:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Bava Batra
Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.
Bava Batra 55
לֶיעְבַּד לִי מָר כְּאִידַּךְ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַכּוֹשׁוֹ בִּלְבַד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּהַאי, אֲנָא כִּשְׁמַעְתִּין סְבִירָא לִי – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיכֵּשׁ בָּהּ מַכּוֹשׁ אֶחָד – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ.
If so, the Master should do for me in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says that one who hoes ownerless property has acquired only the place that he struck with the hoe. Rav Naḥman said to him: In this matter I hold in accordance with our halakha, as Rav Huna says that Rav says: Once he struck the land with a hoe one time, he acquired the entire property.
שְׁלַח רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה מִגּוֹי, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִים אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי אִילְעָא וְכׇל רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שָׁוִין בַּדָּבָר.
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling: In the case of a Jew who purchased a field from a gentile, and then another Jew came and took possession of it, it is not removed from the possession of the second Jew. And so too, Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Ile’a, and all of our Rabbis agree with regard to this matter.
אָמַר רַבָּה: הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי, אִישְׁתַּעִי לִי עוּקְבָן בַּר נְחֶמְיָה רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא, וַאֲרִיסוּתָא דְפָרְסָאֵי – עַד אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, וְהָנֵי זַהֲרוּרֵי דְּזָבֵין אַרְעָא לְטַסְקָא – זְבִינַיְהוּ זְבִינֵי.
§ Rabba said: These three statements were told to me by Ukvan bar Neḥemya the Exilarch in the name of Shmuel: The law of the kingdom is the law; and the term of Persian sharecropping [arisuta] is for up to forty years, since according to Persian laws the presumption of ownership is established after forty years of use; and in the case of these tax officials [zaharurei] who sold land in order to pay the land tax, the sale is valid, as the tax officials were justified in seizing it, and one may purchase the land from them.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לְטַסְקָא, אֲבָל לִכְרָגָא – לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּרָגָא – אַקַּרְקַף דְּגַבְרֵי מַנַּח. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂעָרֵי דְכַדָּא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי לִכְרָגָא.
The Gemara notes: And this statement applies to land seized to pay the land tax, but not to land seized to pay the head tax. What is the reason for this? The head tax is placed on a man’s head, i.e., the obligation of this tax is on the individual and is unrelated to his property. It is therefore theft for the tax officials to sell land for this purpose. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Everything, even the barley in the pitcher, is mortgaged for the payment of the head tax.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן, קָשֵׁי בַּהּ אַמֵּימָר: אִם כֵּן, בִּטַּלְתָּ יְרוּשַּׁת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר – דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ רָאוּי, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק.
Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me that Ameimar raised a difficulty with regard to this statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: If so, you have abolished the inheritance of the firstborn son of one who owes taxes to the kingdom. If everything can be seized by the tax collectors to pay the father’s debt, any property that he left behind is only a potential inheritance, not actually property of the heirs, and the halakha is that the firstborn does not take a double share in a potential inheritance as he does in property that the deceased possessed.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ טַסְקָא נָמֵי! אֶלָּא מָה אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – דִּיהַיב טַסְקָא וּמִית; הָכָא נָמֵי – דִּיהַיב כְּרָגָא וּמִית.
The Gemara continues the statement of Huna bar Natan: And I said to Ameimar: If it is so that this presents a difficulty, then even if the property can be seized as payment for the land tax this difficulty would present itself as well, as the sons would not inherit their father’s estate in the event that it is seized to pay the land tax. Rather, what have you to say to deflect this question? That the firstborn son’s right is not negated in a case where the father gave the land tax and then died, so that he is no longer indebted to the government and the field is completely his. Here too, the firstborn son maintains his rights in a case where the father gave the head tax and then died.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן: שְׁאֵילְתִּינְהוּ לְסָפְרֵי דְרָבָא, וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם – לְאוֹקוֹמֵי מִילְּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּאָמַר.
Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me: I asked the scribes who wrote documents and recorded halakhic rulings in the court of Rava, and they said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who states that one’s possessions are all mortgaged for the payment of the head tax. The Gemara notes: But that is not so, as there, Huna bar Natan said that in order to buttress his previous statement.
וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: פַּרְדָּכְתְּ – מְסַיַּיע מָתָא. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַצֵּילְתֵּיהּ מָתָא, אֲבָל אַנְדִּיסְקֵי – סִיַּעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא הִיא.
And Rav Ashi said: An idler [pardakht] must assist the town by paying taxes even though he has no income in that town. And this matter applies in a case where the town saved him from his obligation by asking for a reduction on his behalf. But if the tax collectors [andisekei] do not seek to collect his debt this is regarded as heavenly assistance, and he is not obligated to volunteer to pay his share.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמֶּצֶר וְהֶחָצָב מַפְסִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן פֵּאָה וְטוּמְאָה – לָא. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ לְפֵאָה וְטוּמְאָה.
§ Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The boundary between fields and the sea squill that was planted to demarcate the border between fields serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the property of a convert who died without heirs, so that one who takes possession of the property acquires land only until the boundary or the sea squill, but not other land the convert had possessed beyond that point. But they do not serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the matter of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], and ritual impurity, and even the area beyond it is considered to be part of the same field. When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They serve as a barrier between the fields even with regard to the halakhot of pe’a and ritual impurity.
פֵּאָה – מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: וְאֵלּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לַפֵּאָה – הַנַּחַל, וְהַשְּׁלוּלִית,
The Gemara explains: What is the halakha of pe’a that is affected by determining whether it is one or two fields? As we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 2:1): And these serve as a barrier for the purpose of pe’a, i.e., the presence of any of these divides a field so that each section constitutes a distinct field from which pe’a must be given independently: A stream that passes through the field; and a canal;
וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים, וְדֶרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד, וּשְׁבִיל הָרַבִּים, וּשְׁבִיל הַיָּחִיד הַקָּבוּעַ בֵּין בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וּבֵין בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.
and a public road that is at least sixteen cubits wide; and a private road that is four cubits wide; and a public trail; and a permanent private trail that is used whether in the summer or in the rainy season, i.e., winter. Rav Asi and Ravin disagree with regard to whether Rabbi Yoḥanan held that a boundary or sea squill also serves to subdivide a field for the purpose of pe’a.
טוּמְאָה – מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לְבִקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְטוּמְאָה בְּשָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית, וְאָמַר: הָלַכְתִּי לַמָּקוֹם הַלָּז, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִכְנַסְתִּי לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וְאִם לָאו – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין.
The Gemara further clarifies: What is the halakha of ritual impurity that is affected by determining whether an area is one or two fields? As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:5): With regard to one who enters into a valley during the rainy season, i.e., winter, when people generally do not enter this area, and therefore for the purpose of this halakha it is considered a private domain, and there is a principle that in a case of uncertainty concerning whether one contracted ritual impurity in a private domain he is ritually impure; and there was ritual impurity in such and such a field, and he said: I know I walked to that place, i.e., I walked in the valley, but I do not know whether I entered that place where the ritual impurity was or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure and the Rabbis deem him impure.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סְפֵק בִּיאָה – טָהוֹר, סְפֵק מַגַּע טוּמְאָה – טָמֵא.
Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, as Rabbi Eliezer would say: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., it is uncertain whether he entered the area where the ritual impurity is located, he is ritually pure. But if he certainly entered the area where the ritual impurity is located and the uncertainty is with regard to contact with ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. It is with regard to this halakha that Ravin said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that a boundary or sea squill defines these fields as distinct areas.
אֲבָל לְשַׁבָּת לֹא.
The Gemara infers, though, that even Ravin holds that a boundary or sea squill serves as a barrier only with regard to pe’a and ritual impurity, but with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, they do not serve as a barrier between fields.
רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, דְּתַנְיָא: הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחָה, וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת אַחֶרֶת; בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעְלֵמוֹת – פָּטוּר.
Rava says: They serve as a barrier between fields even with regard to the matter of Shabbat, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who carried out half of a dried fig from a private domain into the public domain and placed it there, and then returned and carried out another half of a dried fig, if it was done within one lapse of awareness, i.e., he did not remember in the interim that this act is prohibited or that it was Shabbat, the two acts are considered as one, and since the two items together equal the size of a dried fig, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But if it was done within two lapses of awareness, i.e., after he carried out the first half of a dried fig he remembered that this act is prohibited or that it was Shabbat, but subsequently forgot again and carried out the second half of a dried fig, he is exempt.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד;
The baraita continues. Rabbi Yosei says: If it was done within one lapse of awareness,
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Bava Batra 55
לֶיעְבַּד לִי מָר כְּאִידַּךְ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם מַכּוֹשׁוֹ בִּלְבַד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּהַאי, אֲנָא כִּשְׁמַעְתִּין סְבִירָא לִי – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיכֵּשׁ בָּהּ מַכּוֹשׁ אֶחָד – קָנָה כּוּלָּהּ.
If so, the Master should do for me in accordance with another statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says that one who hoes ownerless property has acquired only the place that he struck with the hoe. Rav Naḥman said to him: In this matter I hold in accordance with our halakha, as Rav Huna says that Rav says: Once he struck the land with a hoe one time, he acquired the entire property.
שְׁלַח רַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה מִגּוֹי, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר וְהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ – אֵין מוֹצִיאִים אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אָבִין וְרַבִּי אִילְעָא וְכׇל רַבּוֹתֵינוּ שָׁוִין בַּדָּבָר.
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling: In the case of a Jew who purchased a field from a gentile, and then another Jew came and took possession of it, it is not removed from the possession of the second Jew. And so too, Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Ile’a, and all of our Rabbis agree with regard to this matter.
אָמַר רַבָּה: הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי, אִישְׁתַּעִי לִי עוּקְבָן בַּר נְחֶמְיָה רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא, וַאֲרִיסוּתָא דְפָרְסָאֵי – עַד אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, וְהָנֵי זַהֲרוּרֵי דְּזָבֵין אַרְעָא לְטַסְקָא – זְבִינַיְהוּ זְבִינֵי.
§ Rabba said: These three statements were told to me by Ukvan bar Neḥemya the Exilarch in the name of Shmuel: The law of the kingdom is the law; and the term of Persian sharecropping [arisuta] is for up to forty years, since according to Persian laws the presumption of ownership is established after forty years of use; and in the case of these tax officials [zaharurei] who sold land in order to pay the land tax, the sale is valid, as the tax officials were justified in seizing it, and one may purchase the land from them.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לְטַסְקָא, אֲבָל לִכְרָגָא – לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּרָגָא – אַקַּרְקַף דְּגַבְרֵי מַנַּח. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׂעָרֵי דְכַדָּא מִשְׁתַּעְבְּדִי לִכְרָגָא.
The Gemara notes: And this statement applies to land seized to pay the land tax, but not to land seized to pay the head tax. What is the reason for this? The head tax is placed on a man’s head, i.e., the obligation of this tax is on the individual and is unrelated to his property. It is therefore theft for the tax officials to sell land for this purpose. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Everything, even the barley in the pitcher, is mortgaged for the payment of the head tax.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲמַר לִי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן, קָשֵׁי בַּהּ אַמֵּימָר: אִם כֵּן, בִּטַּלְתָּ יְרוּשַּׁת בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר – דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ רָאוּי, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כְּבַמּוּחְזָק.
Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me that Ameimar raised a difficulty with regard to this statement of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: If so, you have abolished the inheritance of the firstborn son of one who owes taxes to the kingdom. If everything can be seized by the tax collectors to pay the father’s debt, any property that he left behind is only a potential inheritance, not actually property of the heirs, and the halakha is that the firstborn does not take a double share in a potential inheritance as he does in property that the deceased possessed.
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ טַסְקָא נָמֵי! אֶלָּא מָה אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – דִּיהַיב טַסְקָא וּמִית; הָכָא נָמֵי – דִּיהַיב כְּרָגָא וּמִית.
The Gemara continues the statement of Huna bar Natan: And I said to Ameimar: If it is so that this presents a difficulty, then even if the property can be seized as payment for the land tax this difficulty would present itself as well, as the sons would not inherit their father’s estate in the event that it is seized to pay the land tax. Rather, what have you to say to deflect this question? That the firstborn son’s right is not negated in a case where the father gave the land tax and then died, so that he is no longer indebted to the government and the field is completely his. Here too, the firstborn son maintains his rights in a case where the father gave the head tax and then died.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר לִי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן: שְׁאֵילְתִּינְהוּ לְסָפְרֵי דְרָבָא, וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם – לְאוֹקוֹמֵי מִילְּתֵיהּ הוּא דְּאָמַר.
Rav Ashi said: Huna bar Natan said to me: I asked the scribes who wrote documents and recorded halakhic rulings in the court of Rava, and they said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who states that one’s possessions are all mortgaged for the payment of the head tax. The Gemara notes: But that is not so, as there, Huna bar Natan said that in order to buttress his previous statement.
וְאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: פַּרְדָּכְתְּ – מְסַיַּיע מָתָא. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַצֵּילְתֵּיהּ מָתָא, אֲבָל אַנְדִּיסְקֵי – סִיַּעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָּא הִיא.
And Rav Ashi said: An idler [pardakht] must assist the town by paying taxes even though he has no income in that town. And this matter applies in a case where the town saved him from his obligation by asking for a reduction on his behalf. But if the tax collectors [andisekei] do not seek to collect his debt this is regarded as heavenly assistance, and he is not obligated to volunteer to pay his share.
אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמֶּצֶר וְהֶחָצָב מַפְסִיקִין בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן פֵּאָה וְטוּמְאָה – לָא. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ לְפֵאָה וְטוּמְאָה.
§ Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The boundary between fields and the sea squill that was planted to demarcate the border between fields serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the property of a convert who died without heirs, so that one who takes possession of the property acquires land only until the boundary or the sea squill, but not other land the convert had possessed beyond that point. But they do not serve as a barrier between fields with regard to the matter of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], and ritual impurity, and even the area beyond it is considered to be part of the same field. When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: They serve as a barrier between the fields even with regard to the halakhot of pe’a and ritual impurity.
פֵּאָה – מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: וְאֵלּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לַפֵּאָה – הַנַּחַל, וְהַשְּׁלוּלִית,
The Gemara explains: What is the halakha of pe’a that is affected by determining whether it is one or two fields? As we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 2:1): And these serve as a barrier for the purpose of pe’a, i.e., the presence of any of these divides a field so that each section constitutes a distinct field from which pe’a must be given independently: A stream that passes through the field; and a canal;
וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים, וְדֶרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד, וּשְׁבִיל הָרַבִּים, וּשְׁבִיל הַיָּחִיד הַקָּבוּעַ בֵּין בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וּבֵין בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.
and a public road that is at least sixteen cubits wide; and a private road that is four cubits wide; and a public trail; and a permanent private trail that is used whether in the summer or in the rainy season, i.e., winter. Rav Asi and Ravin disagree with regard to whether Rabbi Yoḥanan held that a boundary or sea squill also serves to subdivide a field for the purpose of pe’a.
טוּמְאָה – מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לְבִקְעָה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְטוּמְאָה בְּשָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית, וְאָמַר: הָלַכְתִּי לַמָּקוֹם הַלָּז, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִכְנַסְתִּי לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וְאִם לָאו – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִין.
The Gemara further clarifies: What is the halakha of ritual impurity that is affected by determining whether an area is one or two fields? As we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:5): With regard to one who enters into a valley during the rainy season, i.e., winter, when people generally do not enter this area, and therefore for the purpose of this halakha it is considered a private domain, and there is a principle that in a case of uncertainty concerning whether one contracted ritual impurity in a private domain he is ritually impure; and there was ritual impurity in such and such a field, and he said: I know I walked to that place, i.e., I walked in the valley, but I do not know whether I entered that place where the ritual impurity was or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure and the Rabbis deem him impure.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: סְפֵק בִּיאָה – טָהוֹר, סְפֵק מַגַּע טוּמְאָה – טָמֵא.
Rabbi Eliezer deems him pure, as Rabbi Eliezer would say: Concerning uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., it is uncertain whether he entered the area where the ritual impurity is located, he is ritually pure. But if he certainly entered the area where the ritual impurity is located and the uncertainty is with regard to contact with ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. It is with regard to this halakha that Ravin said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that a boundary or sea squill defines these fields as distinct areas.
אֲבָל לְשַׁבָּת לֹא.
The Gemara infers, though, that even Ravin holds that a boundary or sea squill serves as a barrier only with regard to pe’a and ritual impurity, but with regard to the halakhot of Shabbat, they do not serve as a barrier between fields.
רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, דְּתַנְיָא: הוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִנִּיחָה, וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיא חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת אַחֶרֶת; בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעְלֵמוֹת – פָּטוּר.
Rava says: They serve as a barrier between fields even with regard to the matter of Shabbat, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who carried out half of a dried fig from a private domain into the public domain and placed it there, and then returned and carried out another half of a dried fig, if it was done within one lapse of awareness, i.e., he did not remember in the interim that this act is prohibited or that it was Shabbat, the two acts are considered as one, and since the two items together equal the size of a dried fig, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. But if it was done within two lapses of awareness, i.e., after he carried out the first half of a dried fig he remembered that this act is prohibited or that it was Shabbat, but subsequently forgot again and carried out the second half of a dried fig, he is exempt.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד;
The baraita continues. Rabbi Yosei says: If it was done within one lapse of awareness,
