Bava Batra 100
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כׇּל מִן הַצַּד – דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן הִיא; קְרוֹבָה לָזֶה, וּרְחוֹקָה לָזֶה.
Rav Ashi said: Any alternative path on the side of the original path is considered a circuitous route, as it is close for this person and it is far for that person. While some will benefit from the change, it will be detrimental to others. Therefore, one may never exchange a public path for an alternative path.
וְלֵימָא לְהוּ: שִׁקְלוּ דִּידְכוּ וְהַבוּ לִי דִּידִי! הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: רַבִּים שֶׁבֵּרְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ לְעַצְמָם, מַה שֶּׁבֵּרְרוּ בֵּרְרוּ.
§ The mishna teaches that if a field owner provides an alternative thoroughfare through his field for the public to use, the public may use both thoroughfares. The Gemara suggests: But let him say to them: Take your original thoroughfare back and give me my thoroughfare that I provided you. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: If the public selected a thoroughfare through a privately owned field for themselves even without gaining the permission of the field owner, that which they selected, they selected, and they have the right to use it.
לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – רַבִּים גַּזְלָנִים נִינְהוּ?! אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָבְדָה לָהֶן דֶּרֶךְ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה.
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, are the members of the public entitled to be robbers? Why should they be permitted to appropriate land from a private owner? Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Rabbi Eliezer refers only to a case where the public lost a thoroughfare in that field, e.g., the field was plowed over and the original course of the thoroughfare is not known. In such a case, the public has the right to determine the course anew.
אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי הָא לָא מַתְנֵי הָא.
The Gemara asks: If so, why does Rabba bar Rav Huna say that Rav says that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? His reasoning seems valid. The Gemara answers: The one who teaches this, i.e., that Rabbi Eliezer is referring to a case where a thoroughfare was lost, does not teach that, i.e., that Rav rules against Rabbi Eliezer. There is a dispute as to what Rav said.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב יְהוּדָה – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מֶצֶר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בּוֹ רַבִּים – אָסוּר לְקַלְקְלוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabba bar Rav Huna, what is the reason the field owner cannot reclaim the alternative thoroughfare that he gave to the public? The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a strip of land that serves as a border between two strips of land that the public took possession of as a public thoroughfare, it is prohibited to destroy it for them, i.e., prevent people from using it. Accordingly, in the case of the mishna, where the field owner actually provided the public with a thoroughfare, he may certainly not take it back.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – רַבִּים בְּמַאי קָנוּ לֵיהּ? בְּהִילּוּכָא. דְּתַנְיָא: הִלֵּךְ בָּהּ לְאׇרְכָּהּ וּלְרׇחְבָּהּ – קָנָה מְקוֹם הִילּוּכוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הִילּוּךְ מוֹעִיל כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִיק.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, through what means does the public acquire the thoroughfare they choose? The Gemara answers: By means of walking on the thoroughfare, as it is taught in a baraita: If one walked along a field’s length and its breadth, he has acquired the area inside where he walked, as walking is an effective act of acquisition; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say that by itself, walking is not effective at all to acquire a field, and it is not acquired until he takes possession of it using a legal act of acquisition.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? דִּכְתִיב: ״קוּם הִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּאָרֶץ לְאׇרְכָּהּ וּלְרׇחְבָּהּ, כִּי לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה״. וְרַבָּנַן – הָתָם מִשּׁוּם חַבִּיבוּתָא דְאַבְרָהָם הוּא דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ הָכִי, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹחַ לִכְבּוֹשׁ לִפְנֵי בָנָיו.
Rabbi Elazar said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? As it is written that after God promised Abraham Eretz Yisrael, He instructed him: “Arise, walk through the land, its length and its breadth; for I will give it to you” (Genesis 13:17), in order that Abraham should thereby acquire the land. And the Rabbis, how do they interpret this verse? They hold that there, in Genesis, it was due to God’s love of Abraham that he said to him to do this, in order that it would be easy for his descendants to conquer the land. His walking was to demonstrate the divine promise and thereby emphasize his descendants’ claim to the land, but it did not effect acquisition of it.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁל כְּרָמִים, הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה לְהִילּוּךְ – נִקְנֶה בְּהִילּוּךְ.
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a path that passes through vineyards that since the path is made only for walking on it, it can be acquired by means of walking on it.
כִּי אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַבוּ לֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּדָרֵי טוּנָא דִשְׁבִישָׁתָא וְהָדַר. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דִּמְסַיְּימִין מְחִיצָתָא, אֲבָל לָא מְסַיְּימִין מְחִיצָתָא – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּשָׁקֵיל כַּרְעָא וּמַנַּח כַּרְעָא.
The Gemara relates an incident involving the allocation of a path through a vineyard: When people came before Rav Yitzḥak bar Ami for judgment with regard to the width of a path through a vineyard that someone had purchased, he said to them: Give him a path wide enough so that one can carry a load [tuna] of vine branches [dishvishta] along it and is able to turn around while holding them. The Gemara comments: And we said this only in a case where the sides of the path are bounded by a fence, which would physically prevent a person from carrying a load of vine branches that are wider than the path, and therefore, if necessary, the path must be widened by breaking down the fence. But where the sides are not bound by a fence, a person carrying a load of vine branches will not be prevented from passing along it. Consequently, he needs only to be given a path wide enough so that he can lift up one foot and place it in front of the other foot.
דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. תָּנָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹר חֲמוֹר בְּמַשָּׂאוֹ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כַּאֲחֵרִים. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ, דַּיָּינֵי גוֹלָה אוֹמְרִים: שְׁנֵי גַמָּדִים וּמֶחֱצָה. וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כְּדַיָּינֵי גוֹלָה. וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כַּאֲחֵרִים! אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא.
§ The mishna teaches: The standard width of a private path is four cubits. It is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say: A private path is wide enough so that a donkey can pass on it with his load. Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim. And it is taught in another baraita: The judges of the exile say that the standard width is two and a half cubits. And Rav Huna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the judges of the exile. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Huna say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim? The Gemara resolves the contradiction: This definition and that definition are one and the same measure.
דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דֶּרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד – אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. דֶּרֶךְ מֵעִיר לְעִיר – שְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת.
The mishna teaches: The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. The Sages taught in a baraita: The standard width of a private path is four cubits. The standard width of a road that goes from city to city is eight cubits.
דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים – שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת. דֶּרֶךְ עָרֵי מִקְלָט – שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם אַמּוֹת. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי קְרָאָה? דִּכְתִיב: ״תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ״ – ״דֶּרֶךְ–הַדֶּרֶךְ״.
The standard width of a public thoroughfare is sixteen cubits. A road leading to one of the cities of refuge must be at least thirty-two cubits wide. Rav Huna said: What is the verse from which this is derived? As it is written with regard to the cities of refuge: “You shall prepare for yourself the way, and divide the borders of your land that the Lord, your God, caused you to inherit, into three parts, so that every manslayer may flee there” (Deuteronomy 19:3). Instead of simply stating: A way, the verse states: “The way,” to indicate that the road must be twice as wide as a standard public thoroughfare.
דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר. שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ פּוֹרֵץ גָּדֵר לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ, וְאֵין מְמַחִין בְּיָדוֹ.
The mishna teaches: A king’s thoroughfare has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is because the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to create a thoroughfare for himself, and none may protest his actions.
דֶּרֶךְ הַקֶּבֶר אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר. מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְשָׁכְבָא.
The mishna teaches: The path for those accompanying a deceased person to a grave has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is due to the honor of the deceased.
הַמַּעֲמָד – דַּיָּינֵי צִיפּוֹרִי אָמְרוּ: בֵּת אַרְבַּע קַבִּין כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר קִבְרוֹ, דֶּרֶךְ קִבְרוֹ, מְקוֹם מַעֲמָדוֹ וּבֵית הֶסְפֵּדוֹ – בָּאִין בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה וְקוֹבְרִין אוֹתוֹ עַל כׇּרְחוֹ, מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the practice of standing and comforting the mourners following a funeral, the judges of Tzippori said that the standard requisite size is the area required for sowing four kav of seed. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a family burial plot, even if one of the family sells the land designated for his own grave to another, or sells the path that will be used by the burial procession to his grave, or sells the place that will be used for standing and comforting his mourners, or sells the site that will be used for his eulogy, his family members may come and bury him in his grave even against the will of the buyer, due to the need to avoid a family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name that would arise if one of the family members was not buried with the rest of his family.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשִּׁבְעָה מַעֲמָדוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת לְמֵת, כְּנֶגֶד ״הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים אָמַר קֹהֶלֶת, הֲבֵל הֲבָלִים הַכֹּל הָבֶל״.
The Sages taught in a baraita: On their return from the burial, the mourners would stop after traveling a short distance and would sit to bewail the loss of the deceased. They would then stand and continue journeying for a short while and then repeat the procedure. The mourners perform no fewer than seven standings and sittings in honor of the deceased. These seven correspond to the seven references to “vanity” in the verse: “Vanity of vanities, says Kohelet; vanity of vanities, all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2), counting the plural term “vanities” as two references.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הֵיכִי עָבְדִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּדְתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: בִּיהוּדָה, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא הָיוּ פּוֹחֲתִין מִשִּׁבְעָה מַעֲמָדוֹת וּמוֹשָׁבוֹת לְמֵת, כְּגוֹן: ״עִמְדוּ יְקָרִים עֲמוֹדוּ״; ״שְׁבוּ יְקָרִים שֵׁבוּ״. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, אַף בְּשַׁבָּת מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: How do they perform this ceremony? Rav Ashi said to him that it is done as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said that in Judea, initially they would perform no fewer than seven standings and sittings in honor of the deceased. One of the procession would make a statement such as: Stand, dear friends, stand, after which the mourners would continue on their journey to their home, and then he would say: Sit down, dear friends, sit down, at which point they would sit. The Rabbis said to him: If so, that this is all that the practice entails, then it should be permitted to do so even on Shabbat, since there is no explicit eulogy or mourning, whereas the custom is not to do so.
אֲחָתֵיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר פָּפָּא הֲוָה נְסִיבָא לֵיהּ לְרַב אַוְיָא. שְׁכִיבָא, עֲבַד לַהּ מַעֲמָד וּמוֹשָׁב. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: טְעָה בְּתַרְתֵּי; טְעָה – שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֶלָּא בִּקְרוֹבִים, וְהוּא עֲבַד אֲפִילּוּ בִּרְחוֹקִים; וּטְעָה – שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, וְהוּא עֲבַד בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי.
The Gemara relates: The sister of Rami bar Pappa was married to Rav Avya. When she died Rav Avya performed the practice of standing and sitting for her. Rav Yosef said: He erred in two matters. He erred, as the ceremony is to be performed only with the participation of close family members, and he performed it even with a distant relative. And he erred again, as mourners should perform this ceremony only on the first day of mourning, the day of the burial, and he performed it on the second day.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּהָא נָמֵי טְעָה – שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֶלָּא בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְהוּא עָשָׂה בָּעִיר. רָבָא אָמַר: בְּהָא נָמֵי טְעָה – שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ, וְהָתָם לָא נְהוּג.
Abaye said: He also erred in this, as mourners should perform the ceremony only in the cemetery, but he performed it in the city. Rava said: He also erred in this, as mourners should perform it only in a locale where people are accustomed do so, but there, where he performed it, it was not the custom to do so.
מֵיתִיבִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, אַף בְּשַׁבָּת מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת וּבְיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת מַאי בָּעֵי? בְּעִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, דְּאַמְטְיוּהוּ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.
The Gemara raises an objection to the claims of Rav Yosef and Abaye from the baraita cited above: The Rabbis said to him: If so, that this is all that the practice entails, then it should be permitted to do so even on Shabbat. The Gemara explains the objection: And if you say, as Abaye did, that the ceremony should be performed only in the cemetery, or, as Rav Yosef did, on the first day, then how could it occur that the ceremony would be performed on Shabbat; what would anyone want to be doing in a cemetery on Shabbat, when it is prohibited to perform a burial? The Gemara explains: It could happen in a city that is close to the cemetery, and this is a case where they brought the deceased for burial at twilight just before Shabbat began, so that the return journey took place on Shabbat itself.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר מָקוֹם לַחֲבֵרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ קֶבֶר, וְכֵן הַמְקַבֵּל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ קֶבֶר – עוֹשֶׂה תּוֹכָהּ שֶׁל מְעָרָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַל שֵׁשׁ. וּפוֹתֵחַ לְתוֹכָהּ שְׁמוֹנָה כּוּכִין – שָׁלֹשׁ מִכָּאן וְשָׁלֹשׁ מִכָּאן, וּשְׁנַיִם מִכְּנֶגְדָּן. וְכוּכִין – אׇרְכָּן אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְרוּמָן שֶׁבַע,
MISHNA: There is the case of one who sells a plot of land to another in order for him to construct for himself an underground catacomb, and similarly the case of a contractor who receives a plot of land from another under a commission to construct for him a catacomb. If the size of the catacomb was not specified, then he should make the inside of each burial chamber four cubits wide by six cubits long and open up into the chamber, by digging into its walls, eight burial niches [kukhin] in which the coffins will rest. Three niches should be opened up from the wall here, along the length of the chamber, and three from there, along the other side, and two niches from the wall facing the entrance. And these niches should be formed so that their length is four cubits and their height is seven handbreadths,
