Amazing Bava Kamma Resources

As you all know I try to spend some time each day exploring and swimming in the sea of the Talmud. Since the beginning of the latest Daf Yomi cycle, have been keeping up with it as best I can. It currently is reading the Succah tractate, which covers the festival of Succah that occurs a few days after Yom Kippur, in which traditional Jews build a succah (booth) and are supposed to eat and sleep in it for the week of the festival. I have included some excerpts in the blog.

The Talmud passages spend a LOT of time on the dimensions and measurements and materials of a succah, so it can seem rather esoteric to someone like myself who won’t be building a succah, any time soon.

However, there are other tractates of the Talmud that deal with more “real world” topics. In particular there is the order called Nezikim (damages) and within that are the Bavas (gates) – which deal with civil law.

Since I bought my Ipod in November, I have been listening to talks by Rabbi Shlomo Singer from the Passaic Torah Institute on the first chapter (of ten) of Bava Kamma (he has taken over a one and a half years of two to three per week 40-minute lectures to cover the first chapter). They are really quite wonderful and he does a wonderful job of making them relevant to our day-to-day lives.

For a nice introduction to Bava Kamma -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bava_Kamma

Now it turns out that Yeshiva University – the leading Modern Orthodox university in the States, is covering Bava Kamma this year. And that means that there are a number of lecturers presenting on the topic and they will be presenting ALL YEAR on it.

You can listen to them here – Bava Kamma lectures

There are at least 5 different Rabbis speaking about the same Perek (chapter) – that is Meruba (chapter 7), which deals with stealing and robbery. I am still trying to figure out which one I can follow most easily, since some use more Hebrew than others.

The first Mishnah of Meruba reads:

Mishnah: The rule of twofold payment is more inclusive than the rule of fourfold or fivefold payment. For the rule of twofold payment applies to both living things and to inanimate things, whereas the rule of fourfold and fivefold payment applies only to an ox or sheep alone, as it is stated: “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, and he slaughters it or sells it, etc. [he shall pay five cattle in place of the ox, and four sheep in place of the sheep] [Exodus 21:37]. One who steals after a thief does not pay the twofold payment, nor does one who slaughters or sells after a theif pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

There is also an ongoing lecture by Rabbi Rothwachs, who is presenting on chapter 3 (Hamaniach) which with types of damages (for some reason they are not labeled on the search page, but can be found by clicking on the ":" near the bottom of the list. The opening Mishnah of Hamaniach reads:

Mishnah: If one places a kad in the public doman, and another person comes along and stumbles over it and breaks it, he [the pedestrian] is not liable to pay for it. And if he [the pedestrian] was damaged by it, the owner of the chavis is liable to compensate him for the damage.

A couple notes might help here: a kad is usually a jug or a pitcher, while chavis, usually means barrel. However, they are used interchangeably here and elsewhere (which of course, leads to much discussion). Also note that there is a basic premise in Bava Kamma, called adam muad l’olam, which basically means that “humans are always responsible for their actions” – to read more about it, Google “adam muad l’olam” and the first selection that comes up is my entry on my blog Talmudic Questionings!

------------------

While at times I wonder about why I am so drawn to the Talmud, but it is the nitty-gritty, real world nature of these discussions that are also completely interwoven with a sense of the transcendent that draws me back again and again.

Perhaps these new series of lectures may be just the invitation to enter this world as well.

Succah 5ab -- Can we ascend to God? Can God descend to us?

Here is a fascinating back and forth discussion on whether humans can ascend to God's heavenly realm AND whether God can descend to ours -- the answer seems to be that there must always be a ten tefachim (ten handbreadth) separation of the two realms.

Let's listen to what the Sages say:

[4b] The Holy Ark was nine tefachim tall and the thickness of the Ark-cover was one tefach; we have here ten. And it is written: It is there that I will set My meetings with you, and I shall speak with you from atop the Cover.

[5a] And it was taught in a Baraisa: R’ YOSE SAYS: THE DIVINE PRESENCE HAS NEVER DESCENDED BELOW into the human domain., AND MOSES AND ELIJAH NEVER ASCENDED TO THE HEAVENS, AS IT IS STATED: AS FOR THE HEAVENS, THE HEAVENS ARE GOD’S; BUT THE EARTH HE HAS GIVEN TO MANKIND [Psalms 115:16]

And the Shechinah never descended below? But it is written: God descended upon Mount Sinai! [Exodus 19:20]

The Gemara answers: The Shechinah remained above ten tefachim from the mountaintop.

The Gemara persists: But it is written: On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives! [Zechariah 14:4]

And Moses and Elijah never ascended to the Heavens?! But it is written: And Moses ascended to God! [Exodus 19:3]

The Gemara answers: Moses remained below ten tefachim from the Heavens.

Commentary: That is, the purely human domain is the airspace up to ten tefachim from the ground, while the purely Godly domain extends down to the ten tefachim below the lower limit of the Heavens. The intervening area is sometimes called Earth and sometimes called Heaven, and may accommodate either the Shechinah or man. (Chasam Sofer [Machon Chasam Sofer ed.]; Menachem Meishiv Nefesh, quoting Yad David; see also HaKoseiv in Ein Yaakov).

The Gemara persists: But it is written: And Elijah ascended to Heaven in the whirlwind.

The Gemara answers: Elijah remained below ten tefachim.

The Gemara again asks: But it is written: He allows him to grasp the face of the Throne; He spreads upon him His cloud.[Job 26:9] And R’ Tanchum said regarding this verse: It teaches that the Almighty spread some of the radiances of His Presence and His cloud upon [Moses].

The Gemara here, too, answers: Moses remained below ten tefachim.

The Gemara persists: Nevertheless, it is written: He allows him to grasp the face of the Throne.

The Gemara answers: The Throne was lowered for [Moses] until it reached ten tefachim, and [Moses] grasped it there. Hence, Moses did not leave the earthly domain.

. . . .

[5a2] THE TZITZ WAS A SORT OF GOLD PLATE, TWO FINGERBREADTHS WIDE AND ENCIRCLING the Kohen Gadol’s forehead FROM EAR TO EAR. AND INSCRIBED ON IT, on TWO separate LINES, were the words “HASHEM” (i.e. the Tetragrammaton) ON THE UPPER line AND “HOLY TO” ON THE LOWER. AND R’ ELIEZER THE SON OF R’ YOSE SAID: I SAW [THE TZITZ] IN THE CITY OF ROME, AND “HOLY TO HASHEM” WERE all INSCRIBED ON ONE LINE.

Commentary: [the Tetragrammaton] – the full four-letter Name of God [yud, kei, vav, kei] (Rashi to Shabbos 63b). The Baraisa, however, mentions only the first two letters to avoid spelling out the entire Name. And although these first two letters themselves form a Name [yud, kei], which also should not be spelled out, here it is permitted because the Baraisa mentions the two letters only as an allusion to the full four-letter Name.

Chasom Sofer [Machon Chasam Sofer ed.] derives from Tosafos that the prohibition against pronouncing the four-letter Name includes even stating its individual letters in order; this Tosafos, then, is the source of the custom of saying, yud, kei, vav, kei, wherein the two kei letters are replaced.
. . . .
[It is interesting to note that even though R’ Eliezer gave an eyewitness account that contradicted the Sages’ opinion, the Sages still relied on their tradition. This is because the Sages concede that a tzitz is valid “after the fact” if both words are inscribed on one line. The Sages felt that the tzitz observed by R’ Eliezer was just such a case, and therefore did not disprove their insistence that “in the first instance” the words appear on two lines.]
. . . .
[5b1] And what is the meaning of the word k’ruv [cherub]? R’ Abahu said: “like a child,” for indeed in Babylonia they call a child “ravya.”

Abaye said to [R’ Ababu]: But then, how do you explain that which is written: the one face, the face of the Cherub; the second face, the face of a man. [Ezekiel 10:14]. Now, if the word “cherub” (k’ruv) means “like a child,” then the face of the Cherub is the same as the face of a man! Since, however, the verse separates “cherub” and “man” into two categories, it would seem that the word “cherub” does not refer to a child.
. . . .
Rather, according to R’ Yehudah, [the Sages] learned an oral tradition that a succah requires walls ten tefachim tall. For Rav Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Measures, interpretations and partitions are oral laws given to Moses at Sinai that have no Scriptural basis. Hence, according to R’ Yehudah, the minimum height requirement of a legal wall including a succah wall, is a Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai.

Succah 4ab

If [the succah] was taller than twenty amos and the leaves of the palm branches that comprise its s’chach were dangling within twenty amos of the floor, if their shade is greater than their sunlight [the succah] is valid. But if not, [the succah] remains invalid.

. . . .

Where [the succah] was taller than twenty amos and one built a platform in its middle—If there is from the edge of the platform until the wall four amos in each direction, [the succah] is invalid. But if the distance is less than four amos, [the succah] is valid.

. . . .

If [the succah] was taller than twenty amos and one built in it a pillar that is ten tefachim tall, and it contains the minimum required area for a succah, Abaye thought to say extend and raise the partition on each of the pillar’s sides to the s’chach above, creating a valid succah on the pillar top. However, Rava said [to Abaye]: We need noticeable walls and there are none.

The Rabbis taught – ONE DROVE FOUR POLES into the roof of a house AND PLACE S’CHACH ACROSS THEM without building walls between the poles, R’ YAAKOV RULES VALID AND THE SAGES INVALIDATE.

. . . .

Teiku – Let [the question] stand unresolved.

Succah 3ab

And [a succah] that accommodates only one’s head and most of [his body], Beis Shammai rule invalid, while Beis Hillel rule valid.

Who taught this Baraisa that the Rabbis taught? A HOUSE THAT DOES NOT CONTAIN FOUR AMOS BY FOUR AMOS IS EXEMPT FROM THE MEZUZAH AND FROM FENCE; AND IT IS NOT CONTAMINATED BY tzaraas AFFLICTIONS; AND IT IS NOT IRREDEEMABLY SOLD AS ARE THE HOUSES OF WALLED CITIES; AND WE DO NOT RETURN ON ITS ACCOUNT FROM THE WARRIORS; AND WE DO MAKE AN ERUV WITH [SUCH A HOUSE], NOR DO WE MAKE A SHITUFEI WITH IT; AND WE DO NOT PLACE AN ERUV chatzeiros IN IT; AND WE MAY NOT MAKE [SUCH A HOUSE] A PROTRUSION BETWEEN TWO CITIES; AND BROTHERS AND PARTNERS DO NOT DIVIDE [SUCH A HOUSE].

For the next number of lines the Gemara explains the reasons behind this Baraisa.

. . . .

What follows are related rulings to the issue that a succah more than 20 amos high is invalid.

If [a succah] was more than twenty amos high and one came to reduce [its height] by mattresses and cushion, it is not a valid reduction.

Excerpts from the Succah Tractate

I am no Talmud expert. But I do love it and have been keeping up with reading a "daf" a day now for about one and a half years. A little over a week ago, we started the Succah tractate.

To help me with my reading, I often type in small sections of the text that I find interesting or descriptive of the ongoing discussion. I will begin sharing some of those from this point on. Note that all text comes from the magnificent Artscroll translations.

Today, I will share a few passages from Succah 2ab:

Mishnah: A succah above twenty amos high is invalid. However, R’ Yehudah rules valid. And [a succah] that is not ten tefachim high, or that does not have three walls, or whose sunny area is great than its shaded is invalid.

Gemara: We learned there in a Mishnah (Eruvin 2a): A MAVOI IS HIGHER THAN TWENTY AMOS ONE MUST LOWER. R’ YEHUDAH SAYS: HE NEED NOT.

What is unique about succah, where [the Tanna] states “invalid,” and what is unique about mavoi, where [the Tanna] states a remedy for a korah higher than twenty amos? Why did the Tanna employ dissimilar language when ruling on the same type of disqualification?

The Gemara answers: succah is Biblical, the Tanna can state “invalid.” However, mavoi is Rabbinic, [the Tanna] can state only a remedy.
. . . .
Now, until twenty amos a person is aware that he is dwelling in a succah. However, higher than twenty amos, a person is not aware that he is dwelling in a succah, because the eye does not notice [the s’chach].

second opinion – until twenty amos a person sits in the shade of the succah. However, higher than twenty amos, a person is not sitting in the shade of succah, but in the shade of the walls.

third opinion – the Torah tells: for all seven days leave fixed dwelling and sit in a temporary dwelling. Now, until twenty amos a person can make his dwelling a temporary dwelling. However, above twenty amos a person cannot make his dwelling a temporary dwelling; rather, a fixed dwelling.
. . . .
for everyone the legal fitness of a succah is one’s head, most of [his body] and his table.
. . . .
But more than four amos, the opinion of all [the succah] is valid.

R’ YEHUDAH SAID: AN INCIDENT INVOLVING QUEEN HELENA IN LOD, THAT HER SUCCAH WAS HIGHER THAN TWENTY AMOS, AND THE ELDERS WERE ENTERING AND LEAVING THERE AND THEY DID NOT SAY A WORD TO HER. [THE SAGES] SAID TO HIM: A PROOF FROM THERE?! [HELENA] WAS A WOMAN, AND IS EXEMPT FROM THE mitzvah of THE SUCCAH!