While reading Bava Batra 103a, I noticed that the sugya discussed densities and the kav measure; how much someone would willingly forgo; comments by specific Amoraim (Rabbi Yitzchak, then Mar Ukva bar Chama, then Rabbi Yirmeyah); and the classical dilemmas of Rabbi Yirmeyah concluding in a teiku, lack of resolution. Since this sugya’s features were reminiscent of a famous sugya1 in Bava Metzia 21a, about scattered “fruit” belonging to the finder, and since I consider parallel sugyot and interactions between Amoraim, it might be worthwhile to explore these sugyot together.
In our present sugya, the Mishna teaches that if someone sells a field measuring a beit kor (a certain measurement needed to yield a kor of grain), even if some parts of the field are not plantable due to crevices or rocks, they contribute to the overall beit kor measure. Essentially, the buyer is not insistent upon this. This is only true for unplantable rocks which aren’t ten handbreadths high.
Rabbi Yitzchak (bar Acha) was a third-generation Amora from the Land of Israel, a student of Rabbi Yochanan, whom he often cites. Rabbi Yitzchak descended to Bavel, as we see in Berachot 44a: “When Rabbi Yitzchak came (from Israel) he said, ‘There was a city in Israel called Gufnit, in which eight pairs of kohen brothers lived, married to eighty pairs of kohen-family sisters.” He interacts with Rav Nachman, Rav Chisda, and Rav Sheshet, third-generation Babylonian Amoraim. The alternative is that this is the fifth-generation Babylonian Tanna of the brayta, Rabbi Yitzchak, but I don’t think a Tanna’s words would be typically introduced with אָמַר.
On this Mishna, Rabbi Yitzchak comments that this buyer’s mechila is only if the rocky portion is restricted to under בֵּית אַרְבַּעַת קַבִּין, that is, the land which produces four kav of grain. A kav is 1/180 of a kor, so it seems like it is 4 / 180 = 1 / 45 of the field. To give a sense of how much area we’re talking about, realize that a beit kav is the amount in which one sows a kav of grain, not to yield that amount of grain. A beit rova, the area to sow ¼ kav, is 104 ⅙ square amot, so Rabbi Yitzchak’s measure is sixteen times that, or 1666 ⅔ square amot. The parallel Yerushalmi (Bava Batra 7:1) has Rabbi Yasa (that is Rabbi Assi) quote Rabbi Yochanan, with a בֵּית רוֹבַע, beit rova hakav limitation, so we might wonder if there’s a scribal error in play.
Rav (or rather Mar) Ukva bar Chama was a fourth-generation Babylonian Amora, who was Rami bar Chama’s older brother. Both brothers married Rav Chisda’s daughters. He modifies Rabbi Yitzchak’s statement to add a density — this is where the beit four kav of rocks2 are within a planting area of planting five kav of grain, so 4/5 of that area being rocky is the potential problem.
Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba is a third-generation Amora of Israel, who quotes his second-generation teacher, Rabbi Yochanan, also of Israel. They speak about a case where the rocks are scattered through the greater portion of the field. As Rashbam writes, this is in argument with Rav Ukva bar Chama about the density and location. It seems slightly strange that Rabbi Yochanan would be quoted to modify his student’s statement, assuming we’ve identified Rabbi Yitzchak correctly. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba asks a question within Rabbi Yochanan that is unresolved — teiku.
Then, Rabbi Yirmeyah, a third and fourth-generation Amora who moved to Israel, poses a few of his classic questions. What if they are arranged in a ring? In a row? What if the rocks form an angle or a crooked path? All these questions3 are unresolved — teiku.
Among the commentators, Rabbeinu Gershom understands Rabbi Yirmeyah’s questions as working within the approaches of both Rabbi Yochanan and Mar Ukva bar Chama. Rashbam says Rabbi Yirmeyah’s questions are within Rabbi Yochanan’s approach. Does it make sense for Rabbi Yirmeyah to know of Mar Ukva bar Chama’s explanation in Bavel, or should we expect him to interact within Rabbi Yochanan’s framework? In the parallel Yerushalmi, several Amoraim ask similar questions within Rabbi Yochanan’s approach.
Also, the Ri Megash explains that the density issue is whether they’re deemed mefuzarin— scattered (in which case they’d be measured with it) or mechunasin— gathered together (in which case we’d not even include a beit four kav). And the same for understanding Rabbi Yirmeyah’s question.
Scattered Fruit
In the famous sugya of Bava Metzia 21a, the Mishna states that פֵּירוֹת מְפוּזָּרִין, scattered fruit, belongs to the finder. A later Mishna refers to piled fruit, צִבּוּרֵי פֵרוֹת. In the Gemara, Rabbi Yitzchak says that scattered fruit refers to one kav in four amot (presumably, a 1 x 4 cubit area).
The Talmudic Narrator challenges this idea, for density should not make a difference regarding whether he should keep it rather than whether it looks like it was dropped and thus scattered or whether it was carefully placed. (I’d challenge this, in turn, and say that density might define what counts as gathered, to the exclusion of scattered.)
This objection is the prompt for introducing Rav Ukva bar Chama’s comment,that “we are dealing4 with a threshing floor. That is, the Mishna employs the term “fruit” not just for apples and oranges, but for produce, in this case, grain. The owner knows about the grain, so we aren’t dealing with a lost item, but something the owner may have willfully abandoned. As the Talmudic narrator explains, the willful abandonment is a function of the effort he’d need to expend to collect the grain.
I believe that one plausible aspect of this sugya that is overlooked is that, on a threshing floor, the owner likely brought a lot more grain to be threshed than would produce a kav (about 1 liter). A man with a flail can thresh seven bushels of wheat in a day, where a bushel is 60 pounds and about 1.25 cubic feet. What is left scattered on the ground are the remnants, which he might consider a rounding error of a larger figure. This might have a psychological impact aside from any ratio of effort to reward.
To this, Rabbi Yirmeyah poses several queries: What about half a kav in two amot? Two kav in eight amot? If it’s not wheat, but sesame? Or dates? Or pomegranates? For each inquiry, the Talmudic Narrator expands upon the question, in terms of the lesser effort for half a kav, greater payout for two kav, and the increased or decreased effort and payout for the more expensive items or larger items.
This is clearly framed as an inquiry within Mar Ukva bar Chama’s approach to explaining Rabbi Yitzchak. Thus, we see that Rabbi Yirmeyah will react to his framing. This can inform us about our Bava Batra suyga.
Still, I have my reservations. That the Talmudic Narrator framed it this way isn’t dispositive. Yes, half a kav and two kav are cases that work regarding a threshing floor. Sesame seeds are indeed threshed, but perhaps on a dedicated and clean threshing floor. However, since when are pomegranates and dates threshed?! We’re dealing with large whole pomegranates, not the seeds therein! This wouldn’t occur בְּמַכְנַשְׁתָּא דְּבֵי דָרֵי. You’d need to construct some other case in whichthere’s doubt of willful abandonment.
If so, maybe Rabbi Yirmeyah understands Rabbi Yitzchak as referring to density, and the definition of the Mishna’s mefuzarin. After all, mefuzarin might define that something was dropped accidentally and lost rather than deliberately placed. To this, Rabbi Yirmeyah explores the same density but greater or smaller absolute produce, as well as whether larger and smaller produce within the same area would also be considered mefuzarin.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
1 Famous in the sense that many yeshivot classically begin teaching gemara with the second perek of Bava Metzia, Elu Metziut, and this is the first sugya there, preceding יאוש שלא מדעת.
2 I’m trying for precision. I’ve seen translations of four kav of rocks, but it is four beit kav of rocks.
3 Actually, Rashbam interjects ואם תמצי לומר between each question, and may base himself on a manuscript. If so, some Rishonim treat a chain of אם תמצי לומר as accepting the preceding query as true, with only the final teiku as unresolved.
4 in Rabbi Yitzchak’s statement; as the Talmudic Narrator frames it somewhat later, with the Mishna’s case as well.
