As the Torah reminds us over and over, it’s important that both judges and witnesses be impartial (see, for example, Exodus 23:1–13 and Deuteronomy 16:19–20). On today’s daf, the rabbis explore what that means when the lawsuit involves a communal resource.
The residents of a city whose Torah scroll was stolen: The case is not adjudicated by the judges of that city and proof may not be brought from the people of that city.
Torah scrolls have never been cheap. These days, a new one costs roughly the same as a car which is an enormous amount of money for a congregation to raise. In the ancient world, it was the kind of expense that the entire city might be expected to contribute to, and therefore to have a stake in. Because everyone from that city has a meaningful financial stake in the Torah scroll, reasons the beraita, then no city resident can really be impartial in a lawsuit about its theft.
We learned on yesterday’s daf that in some situations, those with a financial stake in the proceedings can formally relinquish their share in order to participate in the legal process. Could some city dwellers similarly relinquish their share in the Torah scroll in order to adjudicate and testify if it is stolen?
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
A Torah scroll is different, as it stands to listen.
The medieval commentator Rashbam (Rashi’s grandson) explains that whether or not one relinquishes an ownership claim on a Torah scroll, one still benefits every time it is read in synagogue. Therefore this isn’t enough to make someone impartial. Rashbam suggests that to become truly impartial, one would have to move to another city entirely.
The Talmud next explores whether another case is connected to this one:
One who says: “Give 100 dinars to the poor of my city” — it is not adjudicated by the judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from people of that city.
In this case, a single donor has dedicated money to the poor of the city. If this case ends up in court (perhaps to make sure that the money is disbursed correctly), the judge and witnesses cannot be people from that city.
But why? The donor dedicated the money only to the poor — so presumably it’s only the poor who would have a stake in the outcome, and therefore would be unable to be impartial. Why can’t the judge and witnesses be locals, so long as they are not potential recipients of the charity? Or why couldn’t they be poor, so long as they relinquish any claim to the funds before getting involved in the case?
Here, too with regard to a Torah scroll.
The anonymous voice of the Talmud explains that the donor dedicated the money explicitly for the purchase of a Torah scroll, which everyone has a stake in, regardless of their income level. But then why would this beraita specifically call the recipients “poor”?
Because everyone is poor with regard to a Torah scroll.
As Rashbam explains, a town without a Torah scroll is poor indeed. It’s not clear whether he means this financially, halakhically, spiritually or all of the above. Either way, everyone in the town benefits from a gift meant to purchase a Torah scroll. The real wealth is the Torah we amass along the way.
Read all of Bava Batra 43 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 7, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
