Baba Batra 7b — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna i.e., Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: The Sages of Neharde’a follow their usual line o…

i.e., Mar Yenuka and Mar Kashisha, sons of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: The Sages of Neharde’a follow their usual line of reasoning, as Rav Ḥama, who was from Neharde’a, issued his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who was also from that city. As Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: In the case of brothers who divided their father’s estate, they do not have a right-of-way against each other. Although the father would traverse the outer field from the inner field to access the public domain, the brother who received the inner field as an inheritance does not have the right to traverse his brother’s outer field. Shmuel continues: Nor do they have the right of windows against each other, i.e., the right to prevent the other from building a wall facing his windows; nor do they have the right of ladders against each other, i.e., the right to set up a ladder in the other’s property in order to get to his own; nor do they have the right of a water channel against each other, i.e., the right to pass a water channel through the other’s property. And be careful with these, since they are established halakhot. Rava says: The brothers do have all of the aforementioned rights. Rav Ḥama agrees with Shmuel’s opinion, that each brother can do as he pleases on his own property without the other one preventing him from doing so. Since Rav Ḥama’s rulings were mentioned, the Gemara cites another halakhic ruling in his name. There was a certain promissory note inherited by orphans from their father, stating that somebody owed them money, against which a receipt was produced by the borrower, stating that the debt was already paid. Rav Ḥama said: We cannot use the note to collect the debt on behalf of the orphans, nor can we tear it up. The Gemara explains: We cannot collect with the note because a receipt against it was produced by the borrower; and we cannot tear the note up because perhaps when the orphans grow up they will bring proof that the receipt was forged and undermine it. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Ravina: What is the halakha? Ravina said to him: In all the cases in this discussion, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, except for the case of the receipt, because we do not presume that the witnesses are liars. Since witnesses signed the receipt, the court trusts that the debt was paid and they tear up the promissory note. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: In this case as well, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥama, because the validity of the receipt is in doubt. As, if it is so that it is a valid receipt, the borrower should have produced it during their father’s lifetime. And since he did not produce it at the proper time, we learn from this that he may have forged it. Even though this is not an absolute proof, it is sufficient reason not to tear up the promissory note. The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse, and each courtyard must be considered on its own in accordance with its specific needs. Similarly, the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all towns require a wall. With regard to this latter obligation, the mishna asks: How long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city and therefore obligated to contribute to these expenses? Twelve months. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Gemara asks: Is this to say that making a gatehouse is beneficial? But wasn’t there that pious man, with whom the pr…

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that making a gatehouse is beneficial? But wasn’t there that pious man, with whom the prophet Elijah was accustomed to speak, who built a gatehouse, and after-ward Elijah did not speak with him again? The objection to the building of a gatehouse is that the guard who mans it prevents the poor from entering and asking for charity. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, the case presented in the mishna, is referring to a gatehouse built on the inside of the courtyard, in which case the poor can at least reach the courtyard’s entrance and be heard inside the courtyard; that, the story of the pious man and Elijah, involves a gatehouse that was built on the outside of the courtyard, completely blocking the poor’s access to the courtyard’s entrance. And if you wish, say instead that in both cases the gatehouse was built outside the courtyard, and yet this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a door to the gatehouse, so that the poor cannot be heard inside the courtyard, while in the other case there is no door. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a door, and still this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a key needed to open the door, and the key is not available to the poor people, whereas in the other case, there is no key needed. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a key needed, and even so this is not difficult: In the one case the key is on the inside, so that the poor cannot reach it, while in the other case of the mishna, the key is on the outside. § The mishna teaches that the residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse. Rather, a courtyard that adjoins the public domain requires a gatehouse to prevent people from peering in. But a courtyard that does not adjoin the public domain does not require a gatehouse. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a courtyard does not adjoin the public domain, people in the public domain sometimes are forced toward the courtyard due to crowding in the public domain, and come and enter the courtyard. § The mishna teaches that the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. The Sages taught in a baraita: The residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to build double doors and a crossbar for the city. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all cities require a wall. Rather, a city that adjoins the state border requires a wall, whereas a city that does not adjoin the state border does not require a wall. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a city does not adjoin the border, it sometimes happens that invading troops come into the area. Therefore, it is always good for a city to be protected by a wall. With regard to this issue, Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: When the residents of the city collect money to build a wall, do they collect based on the number of people living in each house, or perhaps they collect based on the net worth of each person? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They collect based on the net worth of each person, and Elazar, my son, you shall fix nails in this, i.e., this is an established halakha, and you must not veer from it. There are those who say that Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: When they collect money to build a wall, do they collect based on the proximity of the houses to the wall, so that those people who live closer to the wall pay more? Or perhaps they collect based on the net worth of each person. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They collect based on the proximity of the houses to the wall, and Elazar, my son, you shall fix nails in this. § It is related that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia once imposed payment of the tax for the wall even on the Sages. Reish Lakish said to him: The Sages do not require protection, as it is written: “How precious are your dear ones to me, O God…If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand” (Psalms 139:17–18). If I should count whom? If we say this is referring to the righteous, and the verse is saying that they are greater in number than the grains of sand, this is difficult. Now if it is written about all of Israel: “As the sand which is upon the seashore” (Genesis 22:17), can the righteous themselves, who are a part of Israel, be greater in number than the grains of sand? How can they possibly outnumber the grains of sand upon the seashore? Rather, this is what the verse is saying: If I should count the deeds of the righteous, they are greater in number than the grains of sand. And it follows by an a fortiori inference: If the grains of sand, which are fewer in number, protect the shore from the sea, barring it from flowing inland (see Jeremiah 5:22), do not all the more so the deeds of the righteous, which are greater in number, protect them? Consequently the Sages do not need additional protection. When Reish Lakish came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and reported the exchange to him, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the reason that you did not quote this verse to him: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10), which may be explained as follows: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”;

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La Guemara demande : Est-ce à dire que construire un corps de garde est bénéfique ? Mais n’y avait-il pas cet homme pieu…

La Guemara demande : Est-ce à dire que construire un corps de garde est bénéfique ? Mais n’y avait-il pas cet homme pieux, avec qui le prophète Élie avait coutume de s’entretenir, qui construisit un corps de garde, et ensuite Élie ne s’entretint plus avec lui ? L’objection à la construction d’un corps de garde est que le gardien qui l’occupe empêche les pauvres d’entrer et de demander la charité. La Guemara répond : Ce n’est pas difficile : Ceci, le cas présenté dans la mishna, fait référence à un corps de garde construit à l’intérieur de la cour, auquel cas les pauvres peuvent au moins atteindre l’entrée de la cour et être entendus depuis l’intérieur de la cour ; cela, l’histoire de l’homme pieux et d’Élie, implique un corps de garde construit à l’extérieur de la cour, bloquant complètement l’accès des pauvres à l’entrée de la cour. Et si tu veux, dis plutôt que dans les deux cas le corps de garde a été construit à l’extérieur de la cour, et pourtant ce n’est pas difficile : Dans un cas, il y a une porte au corps de garde, de sorte que les pauvres ne peuvent pas être entendus depuis l’intérieur de la cour, tandis que dans l’autre cas, il n’y a pas de porte. Ou si tu veux, dis que dans les deux cas il y a une porte, et encore ce n’est pas difficile : Dans un cas, il y a une clé nécessaire pour ouvrir la porte, et la clé n’est pas disponible pour les pauvres, tandis que dans l’autre cas, il n’y a pas de clé nécessaire. Ou si tu veux, dis que dans les deux cas il y a une clé nécessaire, et même ainsi ce n’est pas difficile : Dans un cas, la clé est à l’intérieur, de sorte que les pauvres ne peuvent pas l’atteindre, tandis que dans l’autre cas de la mishna, la clé est à l’extérieur. § La mishna enseigne que les habitants d’une cour peuvent contraindre chaque habitant de cette cour à participer financièrement à la construction d’un corps de garde et d’une porte pour la cour en copropriété. Il est enseigné dans une baraita que Rabban Chimon ben Gamliel dit : Toutes les cours n’exigent pas un corps de garde. Plutôt, une cour qui jouxte le domaine public exige un corps de garde pour empêcher les gens de regarder à l’intérieur. Mais une cour qui ne jouxte pas le domaine public n’exige pas de corps de garde. La Guemara demande : Et pourquoi les rabbins ne font-ils pas cette distinction ? La Guemara répond : Même si une cour ne jouxte pas le domaine public, les gens dans le domaine public sont parfois forcés vers la cour en raison de la foule dans le domaine public, et viennent et entrent dans la cour. § La mishna enseigne que les habitants d’une ville peuvent contraindre chaque habitant de cette ville à contribuer à la construction d’un mur, de portes à double battant et d’une barre transversale pour la ville. Les Sages ont enseigné dans une baraita : Les habitants d’une ville peuvent contraindre chaque habitant de cette ville à construire des portes à double battant et une barre transversale pour la ville. Et Rabban Chimon ben Gamliel dit : Toutes les villes n’exigent pas un mur. Plutôt, une ville qui jouxte la frontière de l’État exige un mur, tandis qu’une ville qui ne jouxte pas la frontière de l’État n’exige pas de mur. La Guemara demande : Et pourquoi les rabbins ne font-ils pas cette distinction ? La Guemara répond : Même si une ville ne jouxte pas la frontière, il arrive parfois que des troupes envahissantes viennent dans la région. Par conséquent, il est toujours bon qu’une ville soit protégée par un mur. À propos de cette question, Rabbi Elazar demanda à Rabbi Yoḥanan : Quand les habitants de la ville collectent de l’argent pour construire un mur, collectent-ils en fonction du nombre de personnes vivant dans chaque maison, ou peut-être collectent-ils en fonction de la valeur nette de chaque personne ? Rabbi Yoḥanan lui dit : Ils collectent en fonction de la valeur nette de chaque personne, et Elazar, mon fils, tu fixeras des clous dans ceci, c’est-à-dire que c’est une halakha établie, et tu ne dois pas t’en écarter. Il y a ceux qui disent que Rabbi Elazar demanda à Rabbi Yoḥanan : Quand ils collectent de l’argent pour construire un mur, collectent-ils en fonction de la proximité des maisons par rapport au mur, de sorte que ceux qui vivent plus près du mur paient plus ? Ou peut-être collectent-ils en fonction de la valeur nette de chaque personne. Rabbi Yoḥanan lui dit : Ils collectent en fonction de la proximité des maisons par rapport au mur, et Elazar, mon fils, tu fixeras des clous dans ceci. § Il est rapporté que Rabbi Yehuda Nesia un jour imposa le paiement de la taxe pour le mur même aux Sages. Reish Lakish lui dit : Les Sages n’ont pas besoin de protection, comme il est écrit : « Que tes amis me sont précieux, ô Dieu… Si je les compte, ils sont plus nombreux que le sable » (Psaumes 139:17-18). Si je les compte qui ? Si nous disons qu’il s’agit des justes, et que le verset dit qu’ils sont plus nombreux que les grains de sable, c’est difficile. Or s’il est écrit à propos de tout Israël : « Comme le sable qui est sur le bord de la mer » (Genèse 22:17), les justes eux-mêmes, qui font partie d’Israël, peuvent-ils être plus nombreux que les grains de sable ? Comment pourraient-ils surpasser en nombre les grains de sable sur le bord de la mer ? Plutôt, voici ce que le verset dit : Si je compte les actes des justes, ils sont plus nombreux que les grains de sable. Et il s’ensuit par un a fortiori : Si les grains de sable, qui sont moins nombreux en nombre, protègent le rivage de la mer, l’empêchant de couler vers l’intérieur des terres (voir Jérémie 5:22), les actes des justes, qui sont plus nombreux en nombre, ne les protègent-ils pas à plus forte raison ? Par conséquent, les Sages n’ont pas besoin de protection supplémentaire. Quand Reish Lakish vint devant Rabbi Yoḥanan et rapporta [...]

📜 Baba Batra — 7b

📋 Références bibliques — Baba Batra 7b

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant