Sometimes, information is meant to be kept private, or shared with only a small circle. But sometimes you just have to get the word out as widely as possible:
Rava, and some say it was Rav Pappa, announced to those who ascend (from Babylonia to the land of Israel) and those who descend (from the land of Israel to Babylonia): This Jew who sold a donkey to another Jew, and a non-Jew came and seized it from him, by law, he should rescue it from him.
If Rachel purchases a donkey from Leah, and Drusilla claims it just as the transaction is concluded, who is responsible for taking Drusilla to court? Is it Rachel, the new owner of the donkey? Or Leah, who is most familiar with the donkey in question as its former owner? To further complicate matters, Drusilla is not Jewish, which means she is not bound by rabbinic law, but also doesn’t require warnings and multiple witnesses in order to be found guilty of theft in a rabbinic court. If she were a Jews and properly warned, this would be a criminal case of theft. Instead, it’s a question of who pays whom, which is a civil matter.
According to Rava’s announcement, Leah is the person responsible for getting the donkey back. That makes sense: Leah has now received money but Rachel has not received a donkey. The Talmud draws an analogy between Leah’s position in this moment and one who borrows without returning the item. Since Leah has the money, she is responsible for making sure Rachel gets the donkey (or, according to some medieval commentaries, reimbursing her for its value).
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.
But Leah’s responsibility has limits. The Talmud goes on to explain:
And we said this only when he does not recognize that this is the offspring of the donkey. But if he recognizes that this is the offspring of the donkey — no.
This section is a bit technical: The Talmud is imagining that Leah breeds donkeys. In this case, Leah has sold Rachel one of her donkeys, and then Drusilla has taken the donkey and said that Leah actually sold the donkey to her! Here, the Talmud specifies that Leah is responsible for getting Rachel her donkey back only if Leah can’t tell if Drusilla’s new donkey is related to her breeding stock. In the case of her uncertainty, Leah is responsible for making sure Rachel gets her donkey. But if Leah is certain, and can attest that the non-Jew definitely did not buy the donkey from her, then the issue is not one of two competing contracts or claims, but instead one of theft. That’s not a civil matter at all, but a criminal one, and Leah is not responsible for fixing the problem.
The Talmud next identifies another sign of theft, that the donkey is wearing the same saddle as before the sale. Since donkeys are not usually sold together with saddles — at least in the time of the Talmud, I’ve never tried to buy a donkey myself — that’s a good sign that someone just grabbed it and walked off with it.
Thus far, the discussion has centered on Rava and Rav Pappa, two fourth-generation amoraim. But now a sixth-generation amora jumps into the conversation.
Ameimar said: Even if there are not any of these — no. Why? It is known that an ordinary non-Jew is an extortionist, as it is stated: “Whose mouth speaks falsehood, and their right hand is a right hand of lying.” (Psalms 144:8)
Two generations later, Ameimar lived in a world where, apparently, different religious communities were suspicious of each other, and community relations were not always good. In that context, Ameimar presents serious mistrust of non-Jews, mistrust that has legal consequences for everyone involved. Medieval Jewish legal texts follow Ameimar’s position: Conflict breeds mistrust, which breeds conflict.
But today’s daf also reminds us that it doesn’t have to be that way. After all, for the fourth-generation rabbis who open the conversation, Jews and non-Jews may require different courts or different kinds of legal proceedings, but they can trust one another and interact financially. It’s the road ultimately not taken, but it is still there on the page.
Read all of Bava Batra 45 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on August 9, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
