Let's begin: Dalet (four), Bava Batra, Ta'atot, page 41. Yesterday we started the story with Herod. They say he killed most of the rabbis, not all of them. He left one rabbi alive—Baba ben Buta—but we'll see later he left a few other ones. But he made him blind. Then he asked him questions to test his loyalty. Once he saw that Baba ben Buta was good, he felt bad. He said, “What should I do?”
Let's start at 4A1 in the Gemara, the first wide line on the right side. Amar lei (He said to him): Ana (I). Herod himself told Baba ben Buta, “If I had known that the rabbis were so careful with their words...” He tested them and saw that Baba ben Buta wouldn't curse the king, even though he knew the king had done bad things to the Jews. At the end of the day, Herod appreciated that. He said, “I want to kill the rabbis. What should I do now? What should this person do?” Baba ben Buta said, “This person”—referring to the king—“extinguished the light of the world by killing the rabbis. He has to relight the light of the world.” That means, “Go build a Beit HaMikdash (the Temple),” and make a Mikdash. All the nations will be drawn to the Temple. That's like the light of the world, so you have to rebuild it.
Some say he said a different line: “He blinded the eyes of the world,” because they're called the eyes of the congregation. He should take care of the eyes of the world, which is the Beit HaMikdash. “Desire of your eyes”—the word “eyes” refers to the Temple.
The problem was that Herod, even though he was king over the Jews, was subservient to the Roman kingdom. “I'm scared of the Roman government because they may not want us to do it.” So Baba ben Buta gave him a good idea: “Send him a shaliach (messenger).” Let him go very slowly: a year to get to Rome, a year to come back from Rome, and a year to stay in Rome. That's three years. It means this: build it, send a messenger asking for permission, but make sure he takes his good old time. Take his good old time coming home, too, and staying there, too. By the time they say whatever they're going to say, three years will have passed. By then the Temple will already be rebuilt. He'll say, “Oh, it's too late. I'm saying I did it already.”
The problem was that the Romans saw right through him. This is the message he sent with the messenger: “If you didn't destroy it, don't destroy that Temple, okay? We don't have to destroy it. However, if you destroyed it, don't rebuild it, and if you can't...” They saw right through him. They said, “And in case you did rebuild it afterward, you're like a wicked slave. You ask questions after you've done what you had to do. And if you're proud of your weaponry, if you think it's because you have weapons, we know who you are. You're a slave in Rome. You're considered a slave. That's who you are in our books. Don't think you're so special. You're just a regular slave who became free.”
What is this word? The word rach has to do with kingdom. They call Joseph—whoever didn't see the building of Herod never saw a truly beautiful building. Why? Nice green and white marble. Blue, blue, green, and white. I picked Safa and Ayel's Safa. He made one row in and one row out. He put space in to hold the cement, and it looked beautiful. He was even going to cover the whole outside with gold.
The rabbis who were still alive told him, “Leave him. It looks like the waves of the sea.” That means if you walk by and see the Beit HaMikdash up there, you see it one way, with one brick this way and one brick that way—white, blue, green. It looked like the ocean. It was gorgeous.
But now the Gemara wants to say that maybe he was wrong to give Herod good advice. We have a rule: you're not supposed to give good advice to a goy (non-Jew). Daniel gave good advice and was punished. What was the good advice? “Let my advice be good to you: redeem your sins with charity.” That means Daniel saw the prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar was going to die, so he got scared. He told him, “Give money to the poor people and they'll make you live.” Sure enough, he lived an extra 12 months. So you see that Daniel gave advice to Nebuchadnezzar and it worked. But at the end, Daniel paid for it.
How do you know? First, the Gemara asked, “So why did Baba ben Buta do the same thing? You should have known better.” Baba ben Buta said, “I'm helping Herod, who does the eved (slave) some mitzvot (commandments). The other one is helping a goy, straight-out goy. You don't help him. I had to help enough for him, for us, for the Beit HaMikdash. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Beit HaMikdash.”
The rabbis tell us that the old Beit HaMikdash was coming apart, and that's why he gave Herod advice to rebuild it. As for Daniel, some say they cut him down from his greatness; he was pushed down from his position. And I'm not saying this because he gave advice to him. The opposite: it attests to the opposite, because anything he said counted. He was so special that all his words were received well—was decided Mike and everyone. So how do you see that he was punished? They said, “You are the god that he ever thought.” We all know Daniel. What did the rabbis say? Why was Herod chosen to build the Temple, such a person? What were they saying? Well, because he wanted to teshuvah (repentance) back because he killed the rabbis. So the rabbis told them, “Do something right. Bring more light into the world.” You see that even the wickedest guy can come back somewhat, somewhat.
Okay, now back to the Gemara. That's how people know, too, that Hathach, some say, was cut off. They chopped his head off. Haman was suspicious of him because he kept going between Esther and Mordechai. He had him killed. It's very obvious why he was punished. But the Gemara doesn't go with that. The Gemara says either that they demoted him or, the opposite, that all his words were accepted. That's the name Hathach.
What does the Mishnah say? Whatever type of stone, all stones conform to local custom. What's Hakol come to do? He mentions every stone in the book, even no stones. Let's say you use palm branches and just fronds, branches and leaves, just a small little. That's the minhag (custom). You do that, too.
What does the Mishnah say? Since the law is that they both have to build it, if it falls, it goes to both of them. What's a chiddush (new point)? What do you teach me with that? Rashi said the question is that we're assuming the stones and bricks, or whatever fell, fell onto both pieces of property equally. So everyone gets what fell on his land. It's equal; they split it. What's the she'eilah (question)? No, it fell onto one side. The whole wall fell on one side. Or maybe one guy, when no one was looking, moved all the stones to his side after the wall fell. Because now the other guys are going to say, “Hey, these are my stones. Who knows? How do you know?” They're on my property. “Prove it. Maybe I don't have to give them to you.” That's what they say. Since you both gave the money, you both have to divide it.
Next, a garden is also a place where the custom is to put up a fence, so you put up the fence. Then it says that a valley is a place where you don't put up a fence. That raises a question based on the meaning. The implication comes out a little strange. You have a problem here. You tell me that a garden is a place where they are accustomed to erecting partitions, so you have to do it—you can force the guy, Charles, meaning, if it's not the—you don't force the guy only because the next part says something about a valley. In a valley, the custom is not to make a fence. Don't fence it. Let's say there's no minhag, because you tell me the minhag is not to—you don't do it, implying that if there's no minhag, you do it for sure.
A garden is more reason to put up a fence, because we said, “You see my garden, my stuff growing; you guys are going to be envious.” A valley could have grain growing, or it could not; it could just be usage. So how could you tell me you don't have to do it? You have to do it. It's totally opposite logic. The Mishnah is incongruous. It doesn't make sense in terms of the words.
Abaye says you have to read the Mishnah differently. You have to read it like this: you have to put up a fence in a valley where the custom is to put up a fence. You have to do it, implying that you always do it, but in a valley, that's the custom; usually you don't do it. That makes more sense: in a garden, you do, and in a valley, you don't. The way you're reading the Mishnah, it says you're looking at two separate cases. You're talking about the first case, a garden, and telling me that you always have to do it. You're telling me that in a valley, you do it only if there's a custom. So what's aval (but)? What does it say? It says “but”—but it implies that it should have said, “But where the custom is not to do it.” It says aval, “but a valley.” We're talking about a valley already. A regular garden is a place where they have the custom to do it, and therefore you have to do it. But that's the “but.” In a valley, normally the custom is not to do it, so you don't do it. Basically, that's how we learned it, but now he's putting the words into the Mishnah: in a regular valley, we don't do it. That's the minhag. And in a regular garden, the minhag is to do it. It's Abaye.
The Mishnah says it like this: if a guy is in a valley, and the custom is not to make—but one guy says, “Listen, I want to make it, but I want to make it into my land. I want everyone to know it's my fence, which I do.” So you have to go into your land, and you make a chazita. What's a chazita? Don't say “chazita case.” Chazita is like a sign. My chazita. You bend the top of the wall, widening the outer face of the wall's upper extremity with stones and cement facing the neighbor. That means the wall is between me and the neighbor. I take the top part—I bend the top of the wall. That means I take the outer face of the wall's upper extremity and make it extend more toward the neighbor's side. I can stick out more bricks. It's not a smooth stone. I make it face that guy more, and that's the sign that it's mine. Do it toward your side. If it's your wall, put it on your side. Why put it on the other side?
He said, “No, we're afraid the guy's a wise guy, the neighbor. If I put it on my side, he's going to put it on his side. Whereas if I put it on his side, he can't come into mine to do it. So when I put it on his side, it's a sign that it's mine.” One minute: if he sees that your side has extra stone, he'll cut it off. You can tell when you shear that off; the stone will show that someone cut it off, so he won't be able to do that. That's one shita (approach).
The second version is: do it toward your own property. I do it toward the other side. We're afraid the guy's going to cut it off. Say we're both partners. Now that the sign goes toward you, he's going to make the wall toward him. He'll make another sign toward him. He'll make his own stone. If you attach something after the wall is put up, adding more cement and rocks and stuff, you'll always see that it's an addition. No one's going to want to do it. They're afraid they'll be caught as liars.
The Gemara says, “Yeah, but the Mishnah says you make it on the outside. How can the ika de'amri (some say) do it on the inside?” It's a difficulty, because you can learn it a little differently, but the wording doesn't change.
How do you make a sign? Smear the wall with lime on the outside at the top, to the extent of an amah (cubit). So it's not eating more bricks, just smearing lime. Same question: facing the inside. We're afraid he'll smear lime on his side. Maybe now, if I put the lime on his side, he's going to want to peel it off and make believe that we're both keelufa made the idea. Peeling the lime is also very noticeable. The guy is not going to want to do it because he'd be caught as a liar.
The guy says hutzin—let's say you make a wall out of palm fronds, laurel branches fixed at intervals, and palm leaves woven between them to form the vines. That's what he said Hakol comes to include: that case. So how are you going to, let's say, I want to make it on my side, how am I going to add a piece to show that it's mine and not yours? Amar Rav Huna (Rav Huna said), you have to attach tips of palm fronds on the outside. When weaving the palm branches around the lower branches, the tips of the fronds should rest on the neighbor's side. Same question: you have to do it on your own side. We're afraid he'll do it on his side. Now maybe we'll cut off the top, those tips, and discard them, and say they're his. You're right: he has to coat the fence with mud so the top tips cannot be removed. He might come scrape the mud off. You can tell when the mud has been scraped off. He's not going to want to do it.
Abaye doesn't like this shita. If you have a fence of hutzin, you're right, there's no way to determine that it's yours unless you have a document saying it's yours. There's no sign strong enough to prevent tampering with. What did the Mishnah say? If they wanted the wall together, that was still the guy who wanted to do the wall himself. Let's say the guys want to do the wall together. What does it say? They put two signs. We ask this question: don't do either. Why do you have to make both? Don't do either. You're right, the best way would be for no one to do it. But one guy jumped in and did his own, so you have to do your own in order to show that you're both partners.
The Gemara is bothered now like this: this Tanna (Mishnaic sage) is teaching us all about how to stop a guy from deceiving someone else. With the Tanna, we spend so much time talking about thieves. Is that what we came down to? We have to figure out how to stop the thief. Why are you only asking about this last one? Yes, in this last Gemara, where the guy has to make both guys agree to build the fence together, they both have to make a chazita. You tell me, why? Because one guy made it first, he's going to say it's his, so he's a thief. And before that, too, until now, we're also talking about a thief. He told him, “I make a chazita on this side.” On that side, too, he was worried about thievery.
No, there the Tanna taught us a law that what mom is in a valley and make fences on their field. If you want to make a fence, there's no right. I can't compel the guy to do it. Once he tells me that, I say, “What do I do?” I do my own. The Tanna taught us how to do it with the mortar, with the thing, with the lime, on my side, your side. But I had to tell you that because I had to tell you the halacha (Jewish law). And I said, “But the Tanna taught us”—the last case, when it says they both agreed to do it, he's not teaching me anything new. There's no chiddush. Two people agree to do something; of course you do it. I don't have to teach you anything. And there he tells me, “If you do it, do it in a way that there's no thievery.” So the whole chiddush is about thievery. That doesn't make sense.
We're talking about palm fronds. That last part of the Mishnah was coming to offset Abaye. Abaye said that when you make it with palm fronds, there's no way to determine whether it's going to be one side or two sides, because we're afraid it's going to be easily cut off and you won't be able to tell. So he said the only way to tell who's who is to have a start. This Mishnah came to tell us, “No, even with palm fronds, there's still a way to do it. You do it on both sides.”
But until now we spoke about how farmers don't usually put fences around the valley, right? So I can't force the guy to build a fence. Now we're talking about a case when a farmer, Shimon, was surrounded on three sides by Reuven, and Reuven made three fences around his sides, which encompassed Shimon. The guy surrounded him on three or four sides because he's surrounded. He made a fence on 1, 2, and 3, so now the infield is closed on three sides. We don't obligate the owner of the infield to help pay for the first three. So the guy could say, “Listen, I'm still open. What do you got? I didn't get nothing. I'm still open. Hold on. Bring it to my house, bring it to my house: 6 Cottage Avenue, Long Ranch. Call me and just knock on the door. Come in. I'm giving you a class, but come in.”
Makif (one who surrounds): the guy surrounds three. We had it in Bava Kamma, by the way. We had it in Bava Kamma. Do we say the inner guy is gaining or not? And if he's gaining, does he have to pay? Or you could say to the other guy, “Listen, you did it for yourself anyway. What do I have to pay for you, too?” You know, you were doing it for yourself. We're going to see the Gemara. There's a lot of different opinions about who did what and how much you have to pay. We'll see. He does only three. You can't force him to build because he says the fourth one is open. “I get nothing.” He said if we went and did the fourth side, we'd make him pay for all of it. Now who did the fourth side? The Gemara is going to tell us. There are going to be different opinions, but let's talk about the inner guy, Shimon. By enclosing the open fourth side, he indicates that he approves of the construction. So therefore he's basically saying, “What you did before is good. Now I added the fourth side. I'm totally protected.” In that case, he would have to pay.
That's Rabbi Yosi. There's a machloket (two different opinions) here somewhere. Tanna Kama (first Tanna) didn't say—not Tanna Kama said the first three sides he doesn't pay. Rabbi Yosi said if he did the fourth, he has to pay. So you might want to know what's the machloket. It seems there's a machloket, two different opinions. Let's see the Gemara. If you went and did the fourth one, we'd make him pay for all of it. Now who did—who did it? Who's he? It makes no difference if the outer guy did it or the inner guy did it; as long as the inner guy got all four sides enclosed, he has to pay. Either he did the fourth or the other guy did the fourth. Now we'll see how much he has to pay: half of what he used.
Let's say he used very expensive fencing. Even though he could say, “Listen, I wasn't going to pay this much,” we say, “Listen, that's what it is. You have to pay.” That's what Rav Yabar Rav said. No, he could say, “I want to pay the cheaper cost of reeds. I'll go to a reed store and buy some reeds and just put up some reeds. I don't need some nice, thick fencing. I ain't paying for that.”
The Gemara is going to ask a question. Tanna Kama implies that the first rabbi did three sides, and you don't make him pay. It implies that if he did the fourth side, you make him pay. The first opinion also seems to say that, but then it says if you actually did the fourth side, make him pay for all of it. So what does the first rabbi hold? He also seems to imply that. He said if you did three, you don't pay; four implies that you do pay. That's what Rabbi Yosi said.
So bishlama leman de'amar hakol lefi mah shegadar, hainu de'katani... Ela leman de'amar lefi damim, mai ika bein Tanna Kama le-Rabbi Yosi? Tanna Kama savar hakol lefi d'mei kanim bezol (The first Tanna holds that all is according to the cheap price of reeds). Tanna Kama is more meikel (lenient). You have to give only the minimum. He said you only did three, you don't have to pay. You did four, you have to pay. What? The minimum fence, a small reed fence—not what he actually did. Rabbi Yosi would say, “No, you have to pay half of what he did.” According to him, I understand the machloket.
Rabbi Yosi says—Rabbi Yosi says you only pay according to the cheapest reeds possible. That's what Rabbi Yosi owes. He's not going to be more strict. What are you going to give him? There's nothing cheaper than reeds. Rabbi Yosi says, “Yeah, I have two things cheaper. I hire a worker. I hire a watchman.” As it says, the watchman only comes during the actual harvesting of the field, so you only need a couple of hours a day. That's cheaper. That's one shita.
“Yes, I'm more lenient. If you did the fourth—if you did three, you don't have to pay. If you did the fourth one, I'll pay him what a watchman would take: $10 an hour. It works three hours a day. $30.” You know, you have to pay for the fence, even the cheap fence, but you have to pay half the fence, much more. That's what I'm saying. Some say you could say you pay for all three fences, but only for the last one, when you did the fourth one, you pay half of the fourth. You don't pay for the first three, and rebuke these sabbaths they show nationality and I may have that. No, you give half of all four. Again, he's more machmir (stringent).
The question is who surrounded the fourth wall. Only if the inner guy, who got surrounded on three sides, does the fourth wall do we make him pay for all of it. If the fourth guy makes all four, only give the fourth wall, because that's the one he really got—he really had benefit from. Whoever makes the fourth wall, you have to pay half of everything. That's the third shita.
The fourth shita is going to come out the other way around. “Rabbi, so if the same guy who built the first three walls builds the fourth wall, the other guy has to pay him half?” Even if the first guy builds all four, the other guy has to pay him half? He only pays half of the fourth wall. According to the first rabbi—“No, no, the first guy builds all four of them. Does the second guy have to pay half? The first guy builds all four—”
No, but the problem is like this, CJ: you're forgetting something. If you build all four in one shot, maybe that's not the case. He built three, and the guy says, “Oh, three? I don't get nothing.” But now the three are already there. Now the guy says, “Oh, yeah? I'm going to build the fourth one.” The first guy said, “I'm going to build the fourth.” Too bad. The three were already there. So for the fourth one, I only gained from the fourth one. I'll give you half of the fourth. That's what I'm saying.
The last opinion—what I was going to say, chiddush—is: you're right, but who's more lenient? Rabbi Yosi. If the outer guy did the fourth wall after he did the first and the fourth wall, the inside guy has to pay for all four. Only if the inner guy does the fourth does he have to pay for the other ones. It shows that he wants it because he went and built the fourth. According to this, the first guy did three, and then if the first guy does the fourth, I don't give him anything because I didn't show any approval for this construction, even though I gained.
This is what I was telling you before about the Gemara in Bava Kamma: it says this is the case. The inner guy says again, “But you didn't lose anything because you were doing it for yourself anyway, so I don't have to pay anything,” according to Rabbi Yosi. And this, I think, is the halacha. According to this opinion, we'll stop here and continue this Gemara and then another Mishnah tomorrow, at the regular time, im yirtzeh Hashem (God willing).