Bava Batra 285

וכרכיש בה רישיה בי מדרשא אזל לגביה א"ל אילו א"ל קני כחמור מי קני

at the College, and he expressed his approval'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he bowed his head concerning it,' i.e., 'nodded assent'. ');">¹</span> He went to him [when the other] explained<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., said to him.' ');">²</span> Would anyone acquire possession if he were told, 'Acquire ownership as an ass'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! the man would in such a case acquire as little possession as the ass: so in this case, just as the unborn brothers cannot acquire ownership of their shares, neither can the lad acquire the ownership of his share. ');">³</span>

דאיתמר קני כחמור לא קנה את וחמור רב נחמן אמר קנה מחצה ורב המנונא אמר לא אמר כלום ורב ששת אמר קנה הכל

For it was stated: [If one was told]. 'Acquire possession like an ass'. he does not acquire ownership. [If. however. one was told]. 'You and an ass [shall acquire possession].' R. Nahman said: He acquires the ownership of a half.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner having implied by his statement that he wished the man and the ass to acquire equal shares. ');">⁴</span> And R. Hamnuna said: The statement is invalid '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he said nothing'. Since the animal and the man were given simultaneous possession. the owner has thereby intimated his desire that one shall not acquire ownership without the other; and since the animal cannot acquire ownership. the man also cannot. ');">⁵</span> And R. Shesheth said: He acquires the ownership of all.

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא רבי יוסי אומר אין לך מר בקישות אלא פנימי שבו לפיכך כשהוא תורם מוסיף על החיצון שבו ותורם

R. Shesheth said: Whence do I derive this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That though the ass and the man were given possession simultaneously. the man acquires ownership of the whole. ');">⁶</span> — For it was taught: R. Jose said: In cucumbers, the inner portion only' is bitter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'you have not bitter in a cucumber but the inner (portion) which is in it'. ');">⁷</span> Consequently. when a person is giving [a cucumber] as a heave-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For another forty-nine cucumbers. The heave-offering (terumah, v. Glos.) must contain a fiftieth of the produce. ');">⁸</span>

אמאי את וחמור הוא

he [must]add<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The outer and sweet portion of another cucumber. ');">⁹</span> to the external part of it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bitter produce cannot he consecrated as Terumah. Consequently without such an addition, the cucumber which he set aside as heave-offering might represent less than a fiftieth of the produce. should it happen to have a rather large bitter core. ');">¹⁰</span> and [thus] gives the heave-offering. [But] why? [This is surely the same as the case of] 'You and the ass'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here, though the sweet and the bitter portion of the cucumber are simultaneously included in the terumah, and though the latter is unfit for it, the former is, nevertheless, regarded as proper terumah, so in the case of possession given simultaneously to a man and an ass, though the latter cannot acquire possession. the former should well acquire it. ');">¹¹</span>

שאני התם דמדאורייתא תרומה מעלייתא היא

— There it is different; for Biblically it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bitter portion of the cucumber. ');">¹²</span> is perfect <i>terumah</i>,' for R. Elai said, 'Whence [is it inferred] that if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for the [redemption of] a superior quality that his offering is valid? For it is said. And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 32. ');">¹³</span> [From this it is to be inferred that if you do not set apart from the best, but of the worst, you shall bear sin]; if, [however, the inferior quality] does not become consecrated, why should there be any bearing of sin!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely no wrong has been done, since his action is null and void, and he has to give another heave-offering. ');">¹⁴</span>

דאמר רבי אילעא מנין לתורם מן הרע על היפה שתרומתו תרומה שנאמר (במדבר יח, לב) ולא תשאו עליו חטא בהרימכם את חלבו ממנו ואם אינו קדוש נשיאות חטא למה מכאן לתורם מן הרע על היפה שתרומתו תרומה

Hence [it follows] that if one separates a heave-offering from an inferior quality for [the redemption of] a superior quality, his offering is valid.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 84b, B.M. 56a. Since, as has been proved, an inferior quality may be used as a heave-offering for the redemption of a superior quality, a bitter cucumber might well be used as a heave-offering. Hence this case cannot be compared to that of possession that was given to a man and an ass where the ass cannot possibly be regarded as qualified to acquire ownership. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Mordecai said to R. Ashi: R. Iwya raised an objection [from the following Mishnah]: It once happened with five women, among whom there were two sisters. that a person gathered a basket of figs which were<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was'. treating the figs as one unit, 'basket of figs'. ');">¹⁶</span> theirs and[which] were' [also of the fruit] of the Sabbatical year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are free to all. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר ליה רב מרדכי לרב אשי מתיב רב אויא תיובתא מעשה בחמש נשים ובהן שתי אחיות וליקט אחד כלכלה של תאנים ושלהן היתה ושל שביעית היתה ואמר הרי כולכן מקודשות לי בכלכלה זאת וקבלה אחת מהן ע"י כולן אמרו חכמים אין אחיות מקודשות

and said, 'Behold you are all betrothed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'consecrated', 'Consecration' in this formula implies 'marriage bonds', ');">¹⁸</span> unto me by this basket',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Betrothal is effected by the man's handing over to the woman a coin or an object of value, ');">¹⁹</span> and one of them accepted on behalf of all. The Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the betrothal is null and void. ');">²⁰</span>

אחיות הוא דאין מקודשות הא נכריות מקודשות ואמאי את וחמור היא

[From this it follows that] only the sisters were not consecrated. but the strangers were consecrated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 50b. ');">²¹</span> but why? This [is surely the same case as] 'You and the ass'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here the betrothal of the strangers is valid though that of the sisters is not, so in the case of possession given to a man and an ass, the man should acquire ownership though the ass does not. The two cases are parallel, since in the one case the betrothal was simultaneous and in the other possession was given simultaneously. How, then, in view of the decision of the Sages in the case of the women. could it he held that in the case of the man and the ass the man does not acquire ownership? ');">²²</span> — He said unto him: This is indeed [the reason] why I saw R. Huna b. Iwya in [my] dream: Because R. Iwya raised the objection. Have we not [however]. explained [the Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Declaring valid the betrothal in the case of the strangers. ');">²³</span>

אמר ליה היינו דחזאי רב הונא בר אויא בחלמא דמותיב רב אויא תיובתא לאו מי אוקימנא דאמר הראויה מכם לביאה תתקדש לי

as referring only to the case] where he said, 'She who is [legally] suitable among you for cohabitation shall be betrothed unto me'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the sisters were accordingly excluded, the betrothal of the others could rightly he regarded as valid. In the case of the man and the ass both were included; as that of the ass must be invalid so may be that of the man. ');">²⁴</span> A certain [person] said to his wife, 'My estate shall belong to you and to your children' — R. Joseph said: She acquires the ownership of half [of it]. R. Joseph. furthermore, said: Whence do I derive this? — For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A.Z. 10b, San, 21a, Yomah 17b. ');">²⁵</span> Rabbi said: And it shall be for Aaron and his sons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, XXIV, 9 ');">²⁶</span>

ההוא דאמר לה לדביתהו נכסיי ליך ולבניך אמר רב יוסף קנתה מחצה ואמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דתניא רבי אומר (ויקרא כד, ט) והיתה לאהרן ולבניו מחצה לאהרן מחצה לבניו

half for Aaron [and] half for his sons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the mention of Aaron at the side of his sons implies that his share shall be equal to the total of their shares, so the mention by the husband of his wife at the side of his sons implies that her share shall be equal to the total of theirs, i.e., half the estate for her and the other half for the sons, ');">²⁷</span> Abaye said to him: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an individual mentioned at the side of many receives a half of the whole. ');">²⁸</span> is quite correct there;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of Aaron and his sons' ');">²⁹</span>

אמר ליה אביי בשלמא התם אהרן בר חלוקה הוא להכי פרט ביה רחמנא למשקל פלגא אשה לאו בת ירושה היא דיה שתטול כאחד מן הבנים

[since] Aaron was [in any case] entitled to receive a share, the All Merciful [must have] mentioned him explicitly in order [to indicate] that he is to receive a [full] half, [in the case of] a woman, [however], [who] is not entitled to be heir [at all]. it should be sufficient for her to receive like one of the children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had not her husband specifically named her she would have received nothing, the mention of her can entitle her to one share only like any one of the other heirs. ');">³⁰</span> [But] this is not [so] — For surely there was [such] a case at Nehardea where Samuel allowed her to receive a half; at Tiberias, and R. Johanan allowed her to receive a half. Furthermore, when R. Isaac b. Joseph came, he related [that] the Government<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'the royal house'. ');">³¹</span> once imposed crown money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Aurum coronarium; v. supra 34, n. 1, ');">³²</span>

איני והא עובדא הוה בנהרדעא ואגביה שמואל פלגא בטבריא ואגביה רבי יוחנן פלגא ותו כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר ההוא דמי כלילא דשדו דבי מלכא אאבולי ואאיסטרוגי אמר רבי ניתבו אבולי פלגא ואיסטרוגי פלגא

upon Bule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Place names' (Goldschmidt). 'Men and governors' (Rashi.). 'Townsmen and villagers' (R. Gershom). 'City council', 'senate', ([G]), and 'city magistrate' ([G]) (Jast.). [The Bule and Startege were the two sections of the wealthy citizens who were held responsible to the Roman government for the full amount of different public burdens. Buchler, A., The Political and Social Leaders of Sepphoris, etc., 39ff.; see also Krauss, Synagogale Altertumer, p. 183.] ');">³³</span> and Startege<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Place names' (Goldschmidt). 'Men and governors' (Rashi.). 'Townsmen and villagers' (R. Gershom). 'City council', 'senate', ([G]), and 'city magistrate' ([G]) (Jast.). [The Bule and Startege were the two sections of the wealthy citizens who were held responsible to the Roman government for the full amount of different public burdens. Buchler, A., The Political and Social Leaders of Sepphoris, etc., 39ff.; see also Krauss, Synagogale Altertumer, p. 183.] ');">³³</span> [and] Rabbi said: Bule shall give a half and Startege a half!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though one of these may have been wealthier or more numerous than the other. This proves that the mention of two names implies that the bearers of these names, whether consisting of many or few, give. or receive, collectively, equal shares. Hence, in the case of the estate given to one's wife and sons, the former should receive a share equal to the total received by the sons, i. e. a half! ');">³⁴</span>

הכי השתא התם מעיקרא כי הוו כתבי אאבולי הוו כתבי ואיסטרוגי הוו מסייעי בהדייהו וידע מלכא דהוו קא מסייעי השתא [מאי דקא כתבי] אאבולי ואאיסטרוגי למימרא דהני פלגא והני פלגא

— What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus, now'. ');">³⁵</span> There, when an order was issued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they were writing'. ');">³⁶</span> on previous occasions it was directed to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they were writing on'. ');">³⁷</span>

מתיב רבי זירא האומר הרי עלי מנחה מאה עשרון להביא בשני כלים מביא ששים בכלי אחד וארבעים בכלי אחד

Bule, [yet] Startege contributed together with them, and the Government<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'king'. ');">³⁸</span> knew that they were assisting. Why. then, did they now direct the order to both Bule and Startege? [Obviously] to indicate that these [as well as] those [shall each contribute] a half. R. Zera raised an objection: If a person said; I undertake to bring a meal.offering [of] a hundred 'isaron<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A tenth part of an ephah. ');">³⁹</span> in two vessels, he [must] bring sixty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The largest quantity allowed. ');">⁴⁰</span> in one vessel, and forty in the other vessel,