At the end of yesterday’s daf, we learned this from Rabbi Tovi bar Kisna in the name of Shmuel:
A wafer does not reduce the dimensions of a window.
No, this is not a statement about rabbinic perspectives on interior design, but a principle concerning the way impurity travels through a space. Impurity can transfer from a dead body through direct contact, but also spreads through a room where the body lies. If the room has a window, or even a hole in its wall measuring at least one square handbreadth, the impurity passes through it to another room, which becomes impure too, as does anyone who enters it.
If a wafer were placed in the opening, reducing it to less than one square handbreadth, one might imagine then that it prevents impurity from traveling through the opening from one room to the other. But according to Shmuel, this is not the case. Since the wafer is temporary and will ultimately be removed, he holds that it does not serve to restrict the flow of the impurity.
A beraita on today’s daf appears to contradict Shmuel:
Grass that one plucked and placed in a window or that grew on its own in windows; and scraps of fabric that do not measure three by three (fingerbreadths); and a limb or flesh dangling from an animal or a beast; and a bird resting in the window; and a gentile sitting in the window; and (a child) born after eight (months of pregnancy) that is placed in the window; and salt; and an earthenware vessel; and a Torah scroll — all these reduce the dimensions of the window.
It’s an odd collection of items that the beraita says do reduce the dimensions of a window, but they seem to have one thing in common: They are all things that are likely to be removed for one reason or another. The salt might be needed for cooking. The grass is likely to be removed at some point because it’s liable to otherwise damage the wall. The bird and the gentile are likely to remove themselves. And because these temporary items reduce the size of the window, the beraita serves as a challenge to Shmuel.
Or maybe not. It’s possible, suggests the Gemara, that each of the items on the list will remain in place, which is why the beraita concludes that they reduce the size of the window. And it spends most of the rest of the daf explaining how this can be so.
Let’s take a deeper look into the case of the bird. Perhaps the beraita is talking about a bird that is tied in place and cannot flee. If this were so, then there would be no contradiction between the beraita and Shmuel.
But wait, responds the Gemara, even if it is tied in place, it is still only placed there temporarily, because the owner will ultimately slaughter it to be eaten. So maybe it’s an unkosher bird that the owner won’t slaughter.
Unless, of course, the owner slaughters it to sell to a gentile to eat. So maybe it’s a kelanita bird, which is known to be so bony no one would want to eat it.
Unless the bird is given to a child as a pet. So maybe it scratches and would be too dangerous to give to a child. Except a kelanita bird is known not to scratch.
The Gemara continues in this vein, suggesting that the beraita must be referring to a bird that is bony like a kelanita bird but is likely to scratch — which is why it remains in the window, reduces the size of the opening, and therefore there is no contradiction between Shmuel and the baraita.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb when I say that it’s hard to believe this is what the beraita intended. If it had meant to refer to such a specific case it would have done so explicitly. It refers only to a bird in a window, and that’s probably what it means — any bird, kosher or not, bony or not, inclined to scratch or not.
The Gemara gives no indication why it so prefers Shmuel’s ruling that it twists the meaning of the beraita to resolve the contradiction between them. It may be that this piece of Talmud emerged from Nehardea, the academy Shmuel established, and so the rabbis debating here want to follow their leader. Or maybe the discussion was influenced by a common practice that corresponded to Shmuel’s opinion. Or maybe it was because of something else altogether. There’s no way to be sure.
What we do know is that those who shaped today’s daf are deeply committed to defending Shmuel’s position and codifying it into law.
Read all of Bava Batra 20 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 15, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
