Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 120:22

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך חזקת הבתים: </strong></big><br><br>

Whoever mourns for Zion will be privileged to behold her joy, as it says, Rejoice ye with Jerusalem etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LXI, 10. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> It has been taught: R. Ishmael ben Elisha said: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple we should by rights bind ourselves not to eat meat nor drink wine, only we do not lay a hardship on the community unless the majority can endure it. And from the day that a Government has come into power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the observance of the Torah and the precepts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the persecution instituted by the Emperor Hadrian after the revolt of Bar Kochba, 135 C.E. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> and does not allow us to enter into the 'week of the son'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] I.e., the rite of circumcision. [So Rashb. and Rashi, Sanh. 32b. This term is said to have been adopted by the Jews as a disguise during the Hadrianic persecutions when the rite was prohibited in order to remove any suspicion that they were engaged in a religious observance. Others explain the term as denoting the seven days festivities that followed the birth of a child. V. Bergmann. J., M.G.W.J. 1932, 465ff; and cf. Krauss, op. cit. II, 438. The expression 'the week of the daughter', [H] also occurs in Nahmanides' Torath Ha'adam, 35b. This is to be taken as a proof against the usual identification of 'the week of the son' with 'the rite of circumcision', v. Mann J. H.U.C. 1924, p. 325, n. 3.] ');"><sup>22</sup></span> (according to another version, 'the salvation of the son'),<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H] 'The redemption of the son' (Rashi): or, 'The birth of a son' (R. Tam); Tosaf. B.K. 80a, s.v. [H]] ');"><sup>23</sup></span> we ought by rights to bind ourselves not to marry and beget children, and the seed of Abraham our father would come to an end of itself. However, let Israel go their way: it is better that they should err in ignorance than presumptuously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore we do not tell them this, since in any case they would go on marrying and begetting children. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>

Shut min haShamayim

They responded: 'Such an argument need not enter here' (Bava Metzia 16a:18), since the Torah says "In order that you shall remember" (Numbers 15:40).3Therefore there is a positive commandment to perform an action of remembering, namely, to wear tzitzit. "Nonetheless, leave the Jews alone, it is better than they sin unintentionally than intentionally." (Bava Batra 60b:21)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B's building was contiguous to A's property. The foundation of this building extended two hand-breadths beyond the wall itself. B wanted to build another wall in line with the edge of this foundation, the wall to extend two hand-breadths beyond the existing wall. A protested vigorously claiming that B's property ended at the edge of the wall of the building mentioned above, and that the foundation of such building extended two hand-breadths in his (A's) property.
A. Since B was in undisturbed possession of the width of the foundation, he was thus in possession of the disputed two hand-breadths of ground along the whole length of the property, and upwards reaching into the sky. Therefore, if B will take an oath to the effect that he did not remove his neighbor's landmark [when the foundation was built], the disputed two hand-breadths of ground will belong to him. Although according to Biblical law no oath is administered in disputes involving real property, such an oath is required by Rabbinic enactment.
SOURCES: Cr. 239; Am II, 184; Mord. B. B. 558; Agudah B. B. 109.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse