Bava Basra 8

Considering the Rashi about dogs and ravens

Raven Feeding Young:

Medieval Bestiary

Pliny the Elder [1st century CE] (Natural History, Book 10, 15): When raven chicks are strong enough to fly, their parents drive them far away from the nest, so that in small villages there are never more than two pairs of ravens. Ravens experience 60 days of poor health due primarily to thirst, before the figs ripen in autumn. Some say that ravens mate or lay eggs through the beak, and as a consequence if a pregnant women eats raven eggs or has such eggs in the house, she will experience a difficult birth; but Aristotle says this is not true. Ravens are the only birds that understand the meaning they convey in auspices, and it is a particularly bad sign if a raven gulps down its croak as though it was choking. (Book 10, 60): When Tiberius was emperor, there was a raven in Rome that always greeted him by name. Another raven was seen dropping stones into an urn of water, causing the water to rise high enough for it to drink.

Bartholomaeus Anglicus [13th century CE] (De proprietatibus rerum, book 12): The raven beholdeth the mouths of her birds when they yawn. But she giveth them no meat ere she know and see the likeness of her own blackness, and of her own colour and feathers. And when they begin to wax black, then afterward she feedeth them with all her might and strength. It is said that ravens' birds are fed with dew of heaven all the time that they have no black feathers by benefit of age. Among fowls, only the raven hath four and sixty changings of voice. ( Steele edition of 1905)

_____________

Ravens will eat all sorts of food, though, including the feces of the chicks.

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

Dog Digestion, Source 1:

There is no simple answer though as passage timedepends on several factors. Each dog is an individual. In general, raw dog food takes about 4 to 6 hours to move through your dog. Dry dog food takes a bit longer to digest and spends about 10 to 12 hours inside your dog.

Dog Digestion, Source 2: (Study)

Body weight and GI transit times in dogs

Dogs with the lowest body weight appeared to have longer gastric and small intestinal transit times than did large- and giant-breed dogs

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between body weight (BW) and gastrointestinal (GI) transit times in healthy dogs, measured by a wireless motility capsule (WMC) system. Food was withheld overnight from 31 healthy dogs. The following morning, each dog received an orally administered WMC, then a test meal that provided a fourth of the daily energy requirements. Measurements were obtained from each dog in its home environment via a vest holding a receiver that collected and stored data from the WMC.

Gastric emptying time (GET) ranged from 405 to 897 minutes, small bowel transit time (SBTT) ranged from 96 to 224 minutes, large bowel transit time (LBTT) ranged from 427 to 2,573 minutes and total transit time (TTT) ranged from 1,294 to 3,443 minutes. There was no positive relationship between BW and GI transit times. A nonlinear inverse relationship between BW and GET and between BW and SBTT best fit the data. The LBTT could not be explained by this model and likely influenced the poor fit for the TTT.

Dogs with the lowest BW appeared to have longer gastric and small intestinal transit times than did large- and giant-breed dogs.

Source : C.S. Boillat et al., 2010. Assessment of the relationship between body weight and gastrointestinal transit times measured by use of a wireless motility capsule system in dogs. AJVR 71: 898-902. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.71.8.898

End of Bava Metzia (118b-119a) - A few notes

See here for sources:
https://docs.google.com/…/1gH6QLGXHkmxNO37jGGRUJW3pNWMs…/pub

1) The Mishna itself is not clear about Rabbi Shimon's reason. Rashi suggests that he holds like Rabbi Meir that it belongs to the owner of the upper garden, but that he is mafkir towards the owner of the lower garden, because of embarrassment?

Yet he is kicking and screaming in court for rights to it? Maybe not, we are just establishing what the halacha is, and people will follow it. Ramban has the opposite, that it belongs to the lower owner (who has air rights), who is mochel / mafkir the top part.

It could be that it is neither. Rather, Rabbi Shimon holds it is like a dofen akuma, that the upper garden bends, 10 tefachim or as far as one can reach without effort, so the side soil is like the topsoil of his garden. That it is like a pavilion (apiryon) which bends (namtaya).

2) See source [1], a comparison of Bavli and Yerushalmi. According to Bavli, everyone holds like Rabbi Shimon. According to Yerushalmi, what Ephraim reports in the name of Resh Lakish is that we split. Presumably because we don't decide between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. See next note about teku of mamon where you split.

What is reported in Bavli in the name of the academy of Rabbi Yannai is what Rabbi Yochanan says in Yerushalmi in the name of Rabbi Yannai. Meanwhile, in Yerushalmi, the academy of Rabbi Yannai have a different position, that Rabbi Shimon extends to 10 tefachim. It is simplest to read this as a dispute, but perhaps these can be read as complementary.

3) See source [2], the Rosh. Regarding the teku, this is classing Rabbi Yirmeyah, who was eventually thrown out of the bet midrash for asking about a bird with one leg in bounds and one leg out of bounds.

The Hagaha (pictured) notes that Rabbenu Chananel says that in case of teku of mamon, the rule is to split.

Note that of the two cases we have in our gemara and Rashi which results in teku, the Rosh (pictured) only has reaching the protrusion and not the root. It seems that he, as well as the Rambam, have a different girsa which doesn't have the case of reaching the root but not the protrusions. Interestingly, Rosh goes on to argue on the Teku, saying that, based on the **unspoken** reason for Rabbi Shimon of the upper garden owner being mafkir, here he would not be mafkir, because he can get at it from the protrusions.

4) Rashi defines the yerek of the Mishna as onions or garlic. Garlic is of the onion family. Both have the bulbs under the dirt. I am not sure why Rashi wants to establish the case in this manner, particularly since in the gemara, Rava makes the entire dispute about to protrusions.

5) King Shapur praises Rabbi Shimon. Rashi maintains this is the actual King Shapur of Persia. (And Maharatz Chayes says that since establishing law is one of the seven Noachide commandments, this is part of the Torah which one may teach to non-Jews.) The opposing position is that this is really Shmuel, who the Amoraim sometimes called King Shapur. I can understand it as a nickname, since Shmuel was close to king Shapur and the Sasanian government.

It is unclear if this was really a nickname of Shmuel. See Pesachim 54, one such instance. Rava says "I will tell you something even King Shapur doesn't say", which is an idiomatic boast. The setama degemara interjects that this is a reference to Shmuel, but this could be analysis outside of the social context in which the statement was made. Interestingly, there is another version which follows in that gemara, that some say Rav Pappa made the statement, in which case King Shapur refers to Rava.

6) I haven't seen anyone say this, but it is **important** to note that King Shapur is making a pun. That is, upon hearing a statement of **Ephraim** who is **noteh** like Rabbi **Shimon**, he says that his Apiryon (=Ephraim) extends (nimtaya) to Rabbi Shimon.

This pun is important because, unlike one rejected hava amina in Rashi, this is not addressing Rabbi Shimon of the Mishna directly. It is addressing specifically the statement of Ephraim in the name of Resh Lakish.

7) See source [3]. Given that King Shapur makes this statement, we might expect to see a dry 55-page article about Sasanian attitudes towards adjacent upper and lower gardens. But Shai Secunda in "The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context" says there is nothing directly in Sasanian law.

Maybe we can relate it to Sasanian law about fields adjacent to a riverbed geting some portion of the riverbed (to the ear), especially if we are dealing with a dofen akuma conceptualization.

8) Apiryan as grace is apparently a Middle Persian word. There are two ways of reading the word. Rashi has apiryan, grace. Rabbenu Chananel has apiryah, like pru ureva, that rabbis such as Rabbi Shimon should increase.

See source [4]. If we read it like apiryon (with a cholam as in our printed texts, rather than with two yuds), then the word is found in Shir HaShirim perek 3 as a hapax and probable foreign loan word.

If we would like to be mystical, then stam Rabbi Shimon in the Mishna is Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. And in the Zohar parashas Terumah, the pasuk in Shir Hashirim about the Apiryon is taken to refer to the Bet HaMikdash, functioning as an apiryon connection between the upper and lower. As in the English explanation I copied (which is expansive rather than a literal translation), the connection is between the Upper Garden (of Eden) and the Lower Garden (of Eden).

So while Rav Saadia Gaon doesn't know Zohar, King Shapur does, and says that according to Rabbi Shimon, there is an apiryon which extends from the upper to lower garden.

9) See the variant texts in source [5]. Ephraim Mekoshaah is an error, as that would refer to the student of Rabbi Meir, not the student of Resh Lakish.

Many texts are expansive of what King Shapur says. See inside.

Also, many texts have Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explicitly. I think the correct would be the ambiguous Rabbi Shimon, though these texts would reflect how the statement was commonly, and perhaps correctly, understood.

Bava Metzia 119a

Thoughts on parshas Shemos:

1)
וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ-חָדָשׁ, עַל-מִצְרָיִם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדַע, אֶת-יוֹסֵף

A midrashic dispute whether the king was new or his decrees were new. The way the latter works is that the king (melech) enacted (vayakam) new (chadash) decrees, which did not recognize Yosef. See this further developed here.

http://parsha.blogspot.com/…/shemot-1-vayakam-melech-chadas…

2)
וַתֹּאמַרְןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, כִּי לֹא כַנָּשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיֹּת הָעִבְרִיֹּת: כִּי-חָיוֹת הֵנָּה, בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ

What does it mean that they are chayos? Onkelos translates that they are chakiman, which is generally assumed to mean wise women. But it really is the Aramaic term for midwife. See this further developed here:

http://parsha.blogspot.com/…/…/shemot-4-bunch-of-chayos.html

3)
וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ, מִבֵּית לֵוִי; וַיִּקַּח, אֶת-בַּת-לֵוִי.

The best, simplest local peshat is that Bat Levi is not the actual daughter of Levi, but a women of the tribe of Levi, parallel to the Ish miBet Levi. This is the primary. Pesukim which give Yocheved as Amram's aunt are secondary and interpretive.

We hit into problems about the length of the servitude, and Yocheved would be miraculously old when giving birth to Moshe. This interpretation would obviate that. Other interpretations are possible, such as that it means his beloved (who the midrash says Amram remarried) or that it means the daughter of his uncle. More details here:

http://parsha.blogspot.com/…/yocheved-his-aunt-and-length-o…

4)
וַתֵּרֶד בַּת-פַּרְעֹה לִרְחֹץ עַל-הַיְאֹר, וְנַעֲרֹתֶיהָ הֹלְכֹת עַל-יַד הַיְאֹר; וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-הַתֵּבָה בְּתוֹךְ הַסּוּף, וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת-אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ.

It is a *midrash* and not peshat. But peshat could either mean that she *stretched* forth her arm (see what I did there?) or that she send forth her handmaiden (and there?).

An article a while back, discussing the "dangers of midrashim", gave the following false choice:

"Would you see Pharaoh’s daughter requesting her maidservant to fetch the basket—as the pasuk tells us—or would you see her arm grow 25 feet long (like Mister Fantastic) and rope in the basket—as the Midrash says?"

I am not saying that midrashim are historical. But there is a difference between saying something is historical and that something was intended literally. More on this here:

http://parsha.blogspot.com/…/dangers-of-midrashim-fisking_2…

"Adir Apam" and other thoughts on Vaychi

Now this is an interesting variant:

The Samaritans, troubled by the curse to Shimon and Levi among the "blessings" of Yaakov at the end of his life, take away the curse. Our Masoretic text has:

http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0149.htm

אָרוּר אַפָּם כִּי עָז, וְעֶבְרָתָם כִּי קָשָׁתָה; אֲחַלְּקֵם בְּיַעֲקֹב, וַאֲפִיצֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. {פ}

"Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. "

The Samaritans change arur ("cursed") to adir ("mighty"), by changing the resh to the similarly written daled. And they change 'evrasam ("their wrath") to chevrasam ("their partnership"), which is a switch of one guttural letter for another. By dividing them and scattering them, he prevents their chevra.

Note that it isn't introduced as a blessing. Only at the end (Bereishis 49:28) does it state:

כָּל-אֵלֶּה שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר; וְזֹאת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר לָהֶם אֲבִיהֶם, וַיְבָרֶךְ אוֹתָם--אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר כְּבִרְכָתוֹ, בֵּרַךְ אֹתָם.

BRK also carries the connotation of farewell and greeting (compare with the meeting with Pharaoh), rather than just blessing. But I do think the import of pasuk 28 is to say that he blessed them, and that this is the same as what he said to them, above.

See here (you would need to install the djvu extension):

http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/books/djvu/2093934-1/index.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&zoom=page&page=66

Also, the following thoughts on parshas Vayechi:

1) If Yaakov is indeed bowing down to Yosef (Bereishis 47:31), then it isn't subserviance but an expression of gratitude.

2) Alternatively, this is a fulfillment of Yosef's dream, of which Yaakov had said (Bereishis 37:10) "Shall your mother and I and your brothers bow down to you?"

3) However, I don't think that Yaakov is bowing here at all. There is an
intended contrast between the end of this pasuk:

וַיֹּאמֶר, הִשָּׁבְעָה לִי--וַיִּשָּׁבַע, לוֹ; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל-רֹאשׁ הַמִּטָּה.

and two pesukim later (Bereishis 48:2):

וַיַּגֵּד לְיַעֲקֹב--וַיֹּאמֶר, הִנֵּה בִּנְךָ יוֹסֵף בָּא אֵלֶיךָ; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק, יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֵּשֶׁב, עַל-הַמִּטָּה.

Namely, we should redraw the pasuk division lines in our pasuk. (47:21) Yisrael's **laying prostrate** in bed has nothing to do with Yosef's oath. It happened later, and this is indicated that he is weak and sick. And (48:1) Yosef is informed of his father's illness and comes. And (48:2) Yisrael hears that Yosef has come and strengthens himself, and is able to sit up in bed.

4) I forget if it was Ibn Caspi or Shadal, that the whole purpose of the Torah mentioning the rape of Dinah was so that we would understand the reference in Vaychi in Yaakov's message to Shimon and Levi.

5) There is a hidden criticism of Yehuda for the incident with Tamar, just as Shimon and Levi are criticized, and just as what was done to Yosef was criticized.

לֹא-יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו, עַד כִּי-יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, וְלוֹ יִקְּהַת עַמִּים.

Recall what Yehuda gave as tokens to Tamar as the wages of prostitution. Staff, cord, and engraved seal (signet). They shall not leave Yehuda. Except for that which is between his legs. Why? Because he said "until Shelah shall come," that is, kept postponing Shelah's levirate marriage to Tamar. The word Shiloh is spelled (has a ksiv) with a heh at the end, such that it reads Shelah.

Bava Metzia 108: The special derasha on ve'asisa hayashar

1) Amud Aleph:
הרדעי אמרי אפילו משום דינא דבר מצרא מסלקינן ליה משום שנאמר (דברים ו, יח) ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה

Is this just an idea of being nice? This is understood to be a Rabbinic enactment, guided by that principle, so that they will (according to the Nehardeans) even eject the interloper from his purchased property, such that he would have to give it to the abutting neighbor (with recompense). Or that when he buys it, he is acting as an (unwilling) agent for the abutting neighbor.

I would suggest that it is not the **standard** interpretation of ve'asisa hayashar vehatov, that is, introducing the idea of lifnim meshuras hadin. If so, it is difficult to say that lifnim mishuras hadin is being established as din, that we chase him off his purchased property.

I would suggest that this is rather a derasha on hayashar vehatov. The pasuk in full is:

וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי ה לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וּבָאתָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ.

So it is related to inheriting the land. And hayashar doesn't just mean what is righteous. It literally means "you shall do straight and good". In the context of bar metzra, contiguous land is literally straight and good. So we have a *Biblically* established principle of making land good by being contiguous. And that is enough to chase off the interloper.

2) Don't miss out on the long Rashi on amud beis:

שכיני העיר ושכיני השדה שכיני העיר קודמין - נראה בעיני דלאו בדינא דבר מצרא איירי אלא להשיא עצה דרך ישר וטוב למוכר שאם יש לו שדה למכור ובאו עליה ללוקח שכינים הדרים אצלו בדירה ושכן שיש לו בשדה ששדותיהן סמוכות זו לזו וזו שיש לו למכור אינה סמוכה למצרן שכיני העיר קודמין ואני לא דקדקתי בה מפי רבינו כל צרכי ועד הנה פירשתי דבמצרן דיליה קאמר והשתא לא נראה לי דאם כן הוה ליה למיתנינהו בהדי הנך דלעיל ולמימר הכי לאשה וליתמי ולשותפי ולשכיני העיר ולת"ח לית בה משום דינא דבר מצרא מאי שנא דשני בלישנא דכולי שמעתא למינקט לישנא דקודמין ותו דקאמר שכן ותלמיד חכם ת"ח קודם אי האי שכן מצרן הוא אמאי ת"ח קודם תלמיד חכם לאו בר ועשית הישר והטוב הוא דהאי ועשית אלוקח שדיוה רבנן כדאמרינן לעיל גבי זבין לעכו"ם עכו"ם לאו בר ועשית כו' ותו קרוב ותלמיד חכם מאי דינא דבר מצרא איכא וא"ת כששניהן מצרנין אטו משום דת"ח הוא משלח גלימא דאינשי:

He basically says that, despite the words שכיני השדה, we are not speaking of an abutting neighbor (bar metzra), but of a neighbor in town vs. a neighbor of a different field of his, located elsewhere. Tosafot meanwhile makes this a case of bar metzra, but both the town person and the field person are abutting neighbors.

What is interesting about this Rashi is: ואני לא דקדקתי בה מפי רבינו כל צרכי ועד הנה פירשתי 

Bava Metzia 107b: "Be chopped, and then they shall chop"

Daf Yomi, 

1) One thing that pas shacharis accomplishes is:
והורגת כינה שבבני מעים
Though the following pasuk only appears later in the text about pas shacharis, I would suggest the source for this is:
וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּבֵרַךְ אֶת לַחְמְךָ וְאֶת מֵימֶיךָ וַהֲסִרֹתִי מַחֲלָה מִקִּרְבֶּךָ.
with mikirbecha means from within your innards.

2)
א"ל רבה לרבא בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמרי אינשי שיתין רהיטי רהוט ולא מטו לגברא דמצפרא כרך ואמרו רבנן השכם ואכול בקיץ מפני החמה ובחורף מפני הצינה א"ל דכתיב...

Interesting that the prooftext from the pasuk really only directly addresses the Rabbinic statement, rather than the popular saying about which the question was really asked.

3) Regarding this:
רב הונא הוה ליה ההוא אבא אגודא דנהרא אמרו ליה ניקוץ מר אמר להו קוצו עילאי ותתאי והדר ניקוץ אנא היכי עביד הכי והכתיב (צפניה ב, א) התקוששו וקשו ואמר ריש לקיש קשוט עצמך ואחר כך קשוט אחרים

I would suggest that, disregarding the follow-up citation of Resh Lakish, the derasha is hitkosheshu as in the mekoshesh etzim, gatherer of chopped wood, or else changing each of the sibilant shins to sibilant tzadis. Thus, be chopped and then they shall chop. Resh Lakish's interpretation is dragged along, as it appears with the pasuk in Tzefania in Sanhedrin 2:1, and "correct yourself" is applicable. But this might not be the intended derasha.

Kotzu to Hitkosheshu vaKoshu,
הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ, וָקוֹשּׁוּ
is just too tempting, to say that this isn't Chazal's derasha.

Seventy souls

In Vayigash (Bereishis 46), we are told that Yaakov went down to Egypt with seventy souls, and they are enumerated. The count equals 69, and there are various answers, such as that we are counting Yosef, who also came to Egypt earlier and came from Yaakov's loins; or that we are counting Yaakov himself; or that we are counting Hashem; or that Yocheved was born between the walls; or that 69 is essentially the same as 70, and that is the way Scripture speaks. There is also the irregularity that we have only Dinah bat Yaakov and Serach bat Asher listed for the women; is it really plausible that these were the only daughters, especially when elsewhere (Bereishis 37:35) we have reference to Yaakov's daughters, in the plural?

We can answer, perhaps, by considering the purpose of mentioning the seventy souls. In Torah, it serves two purposes. First, to show how far Yaakov has become. They start out as a small family, in the time of Avraham and Yitzchak, and now, when coming down to Egypt, they are an entire clan. That is the point in Vayigash as well as in parshas Shemos (perek 1) when, again, the figure of seventy souls is mentioned. The second purpose, to provide contrast of small clan to a nation. In Devarim 10:22, Moshe says that with (merely) seventy souls you have come down to Egypt and now Hashem has made you multitudinous like the stars of the heavens.

If we consider this seventy souls canonical and the main point, then the specifics of who the seventy souls are is not so important. And it can be idiomatic, or even excluding all the daughters and sisters. But in the thread of the Torah in which genealogy is important (call it P if you want), especially to set the stage for the next stage of Jewish history, then we want to spell out those seventy. And so, by pulling from genealogical lists found elsewhere in Torah, the Author puts together a list of mentioned personalities who can make up those 70. And we know of Dinah because of the incident with Shechem, and we know of Serach from Bemidbar 26. We *apparently* don't want to include Er and Onan, because even though they came from Yaakov's loins, they did not descend to Egypt. But maybe they should be included instead of the two exceptional daughters.

Bava Metzia 100b-101 - Olive trees and clods of earth

1) The Mishna at the bottom of Bava Metzia 100b says that a seah produced only a reviit, presumably of oil. There are two ways to understand this. One is as Rashi explains it:

that the olives were not very juicy, so they weren’t able to extract much oil from them. So one seah of olive fruit produced one reviit of oil. Here are some rough calculations I made. Hopefully I have it right.

1 seah = 24 log = 96 reviis. So approx 1%

Typical yield for olive -> olive oil is 10%-30% on a dry weight basis.

So that means that these olives only produced 1/10th of the amount of oil they normally do.

Perhaps endorsing this read is the Mishna in Sheviis:

Mishna Sheviit 4:9:
זיתים משיכניסו רביעית לסאה. פוצע ואוכל בשדה. הכניסו חצי לוג כותש וסך בשדה. הכניסו שליש כותש בשדה וכונס לתוך ביתו. וכן כיוצא בהם בשאר שני שבוע חייבים במעשרות. ושאר כל פירות האילן כעונתן למעשרות כן עונתן לשביעית:

And see Rashi there. In Sheviis, it seems to be addressing different stages of olive growth. So at a quarter log to a seah you can break and eat them in the field. Once they produce half a log, you can crush and anoint yourself in the field. A third of their growth, you can crush in the field and take into your house.

The Meiri, in Meiri, Bet Habechira gives that same explanation, but also an alternative explanation that a seah is not how many olives you have but a measure of the size of the field, that is, a bet seah. Again, some rough calculations:

Bet Seah = 2500 square amos, 50 amot X 50 amot.

If 1 amah = 1.5 feet,

75 feet X 75 feet = 5,625 square feet.

An acre = 43,560 square feet. So bet seah = 1/7 of an acre. Others have defined it as about 1/5 of an acre.

An olive orchard produces about 1 to 9 tons of olives per acre. Further, usual to extract 40 gallons of olive oil per ton of olives. 40 gallons / 7 = 5.7 gallons for a bet seah. A gallon is 128 ounces, so 729.6 ounces. And if a reviis = 3.5 ounces, we are talking about 3.5 / 730 = 1/208, or 0.5%, of the normal yield for a bet seah.

That seems difficult.

Then again, we are dealing in the Mishna with olive trees being sold for their wood, so maybe they are very unproductive.

See also the Mishna in Bava Batra. Could we read rova instead of reviit, or revi’ (with a trailing apostrophe) as some Mishnayot have it:

Mishna Bava Basra:

דף קג,ב משנה  בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך מדה בחבל פיחת כל שהוא ינכה הותיר כל שהוא יחזיר ואם אמר הן חסר הן יתר אפילו פיחת רובע לסאה או הותיר רובע לסאה הגיעו יותר מכאן יעשה חשבון מה הוא מחזיר לו מעות ואם רצה מחזיר לו קרקע ולמה אמרו מחזיר לו מעות לייפות כחו של מוכר שאם שייר בשדה בית תשעה קבין ובגינה בית חצי קב וכדברי ר' עקיבא בית רובע מחזיר לו את הקרקע ולא את הרובע בלבד הוא מחזיר אלא את כל המותר:

MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAYS TO ANOTHER.] 'I SELL YOU A BETH KOR OF ARABLE LAND, MEASURED WITH THE ROPE',12  [AND] HE GAVE [HIM] LESS, [EVEN IF ONLY BY] A FRACTION, [AN EQUAL SUM] IS TO BE DEDUCTED [FROM THE PRICE]. [IF] HE GAVE MORE, [EVEN IF ONLY BY] A FRACTION, IT IS TO BE RETURNED [TO HIM]. IF, HOWEVER. HE SAID,13  'MORE OR LESS,'14  THE SALE IS VALID EVEN IF HE GAVE [AT THE RATE OF] A QUARTER OF A KAB PER SE'AH15  LESS OR MORE. [IF THE DIFFERENCE IS] GREATER THAN THIS, CALCULATION IS TO BE MADE.16

2) In the gemara, Resh Lakish says that the olive trees transported to another field by a flood comes with the clods of earth surrounding them, and either (Ulla) that we are dealing after the first three years that they split or (Ravin) that we are dealing with the first three years that they split. Tosafot says that the reason for 3 is Orlah considerations. Rambam holds that even Orlah considerations aside, he wouldn’t get any aspect (half) of the oil even during the first three years because of lack of contribution. Even though the trees themselves should be considered a contribution, one would think.

In one of the two articles linked above, I found this:

So the earth itself is not so important. Water is more important. Though other growth surrounding it can undermine it.

Maybe we can say that the clods themselves would suffice to sustain the trees for those first three years or longer, and the other land is not really so important as much as water is important and the trees themselves as factories are important.

3) The parallel Yerushalmi is interesting:

ירושלמי

דף לא, א פרק ח הלכה ה משנה  המוכר זיתיו לעצים ועשו פחות מרביעית לסאה הרי הן לבעל הזיתים עשו רביעית לסאה זה אומר זיתיו גידילו וזה אומר ארצי גידלה יחלוקו שטף הנהר את זיתיו ונתנן לתוך שדה חבירו זה אומר זיתיי גידילו וזה אומר ארצי גידילה יחלוקו:

דף לא, א פרק ח הלכה ה גמרא  ר' יוחנן בעי הרטיבו מה הן.  רב הונא אמר בששטפן בגושיהן ר' יוסי בן חנינא אומר שני ערלה ביניהן:

We would have expected Resh Lakish to surface here, since we have a statement from both Ulla and Ravin as to Resh Lakish’s position. Instead, we have a statement from a Babylonian Amora, Rav Huna.

Note also that the statement in Yerushalmi is just begusheihen, and no mention of within 3 or out of three. Bring the orlah aspect of it is Rabbi Yossi ben Chanina, who is a student / colleague of Rabbi Yochanan.  So maybe what happened is Resh Lakish taught something explicitly similar to Rav Huna, and there were two ways of understanding it, as it relates to orlah. And so Ulla and Ravin both came with an expansion of the original statement, and our gemara is coming to determine which works out better.

4) The arguments put forth by the various parties are entirely the setama degemara. You can see the distinction between the primary text of the Amoraic statement in Hebrew, which uses she to mean that, and the Aramaic arguments, which use de to mean that.

Interesting about the plantings underneath the tree. That would have undermined the growth, but then again, if it would have been orlah during those three years, then there would be no care about the growth. Someone this morning raised the point that, according to someone who grew up in Italy, olive trees don’t produce anything for the first X years. He thought it was five to seven, but a google search mentioned three.

Aside from what the competing claimants can advance, we could say that the concern is really what each party is really contributing, given that olive trees don’t need fertile ground and that they have been transported with their clods. Maybe we should not be so quick to reject Ulla’s account of Resh Lakish.

4) An interesting Tosafot at the bottom of 101a, d”h סברוה, about who exactly is being forced, and Rabbenu Chananel’s girsa.

5) The Mishna at the top of 101b is really being kvetched from its primary meaning. The simple meaning is that there are two cases - (a) rental in the rainy season and (b) rental in the sunny season. To kvetch it into a single can, and so reread the words as if it says “in the rainy season unless notice was given in the sunny season 30 days” is difficult.

It is made more difficult if we look at various manuscript Mishnayot which have a leading vav for the sunny season, that is, ובימות החמה שלשים יום.

I don’t like the gemara’s rejection. The concern is that one cannot readily find a new rental in the rainy season. So you object that, in the sefa, the 12 month period in the big city will expire in the middle of the rainy season?! The ready answer to that is that since he has prior notice, he can plan in advance and then have a house to move into even in the middle of the rainy season. Indeed, the thirty days, just like the 12 months, are talking about giving notice prior to eviction. But once you enter into the rainy season itself, for the duration of the rainy season (that is, from Succot until Pesach) notice doesn’t help, because all the rental properties have been grabbed.

We see that Rav Assi reads it similarly, that there are two clauses, and that even one day into the rainy season, now that it has commenced, he cannot be evicted. The gemara has a problem with Rav Assi and rereads, that is kvetches, his words, to accord with the kvetch of the Mishna.

6) In the story of the man with the boatload of wine, see the Rif, who has a slightly different version of the story. The Rif has the woman explicitly ask that the man marry her if he wants to store his wine in her property.

Bava Metzia 98 - Rav Yehudai Gaon's contribution

Bava Metzia 98

1)
כדרבא  דאמר רבא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא חמשים והשאר איני יודע מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם

See Tosafos.
דאמר רבא מנה לי בידך כו'. פי' ר"ח דדברי רבא בהאי לישנא לא מצינו עיקרה בגמ' ומיהו קבלנו מרבותינו דעיקרה בפרק כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מז.) דאמר רבא כוותיה דרבי אבא מסתברא מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם:

Generally, when you have a statement in the gemara, "in accordance with X, as X says", and then the statement, this is NOT the home location of the statement. It is the setama degemara looking at another sugya where named Amoraim are conversing, and pulling out a specific position. It is always good to know the home, primary location of a statement and the foreign locations where the statement is used. And here, there does not seem to be any such home location for the statement. Except Tosafot has a tradition / explanation for what that location is.

2)
דאמר רבא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי אלא חמשים והשאר איני יודע מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם משכחת לה

According to a note in my Talmud Bavli Hashalem veHamefoar (Mahadurat Freidman), there are some old manuscripts that have the word "peirush" before the words משכחת לה. And that the Ritva and Ramban note that this section until the seifa is from Rav Yehudai Gaon.

That is, it is post-Talmudic. And that Rav Yehudai put this in as a commentary, and it was copied / adopted into the standard text of the gemara.

Possible repercussion - can you (or can a Rishon, if you want) argue with this **Geonic** text, which is well post-Ravina / Rav Ashi / Savoraim?

This gemara in general seems to be quite far-fetched in its situational setup. There is a much Tosafot to Talmud ratio, and thus very little daf. This is often indicative of a difficult gemara.

3) See Tosafot on amud bet, d"h, שאלה בבעלים שכרה, and the discussion of what Rashi's girsa was.