Praising those with whom you disagree (Bava Basra 176)

Today we finish Bava Batra. The Mishna (on the previous page) recorded a dispute, in a practical case, between Rabbi Yishmael and Shimon ben Nanas. After Ben Nanas presented his argument, Rabbi Yishmael praised Ben Nanas to the heavens:

To become a Chacham, one should study monetary laws. It is the greatest field in Torah; To learn monetary laws, one should study under Ben Nanas.

With such high praise, one might think that Rabbi Yishmael retracted. However, the gemara reports (via Rabba bar bar Chana) that not only did Rabbi Yishmael still hold firm in his position, the halacha is like him. And it turns out that even in the case of promise of repayment to save the borrower from choking, which was the comparison Ben Nanas offered, and which Rabbi Yishmael praised -- even there, Rabbi Yishmael disagrees, and the halacha is like Rabbi Yishmael.

This is a nice way to end a masechta, and is fitting for the three weeks. We can learn from Rabbi Yishmael's example. Even when we believe someone's halachic positions are wrong, we can still be polite to them, and even praise their character or thought process. All the while, holding true to what we believe is the correct halacha. And such niceness does not mean that we will lose the day.

________

Some thoughts about Rav Papa, especially after seeing the Rif and the Rosh. We saw on the previous daf that the Amoraim of Bavel were all aligned to say that Shibud is not Biblical, while all the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael were aligned to say that it was Biblical. And when, for a moment, it seemed that a statement of Rabba indicated the opposite, the gemara explained that he was explaining it according to what the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael held.

Then, we have Rav Pappa. He is the fifth generation, is thus Batrai, the halacha is like him, and he employs the word hilchesa. With whom does he align? Like Ulla that it is Biblical, or like Rabba that it is Rabbinic? The text of Rav Pappa in our gemara appears in the chart below, on the left hand side.

He stakes out a practical position regarding inheritors and purchasers, and the words he uses for each match exactly to what the gemara offers ("mai taama") to explain Rabba. And he is an Amora of Bavel. So it makes sense to place him as Shibud being Rabbinic. That is why a reason needs to be given to collect from the inheritors, of not closing the door before borrowers. If it were Biblical, then there would be no need to give a justification.

But the gemara in Kiddushin 13b has a different version of Rav Pappa, where his reason for inheritors is that Shibuda deOraysa, is Biblical! 

Rif and Rosh harmonize, and say it is not a dispute. Rather, Shibud is Biblical, but the reason the Rabbis didn't nullify it (as they did by purchasers, in the sefa) is the reason given, of not shutting the door before borrowers. This works. And there is a general trend of harmonizing sources to arrive at a globally optimal explanation.

There is a different derech halimud (IIRC popular in Spain before the expulsion) in which we identify the primary sugya where something is discussed and follow that. And look to a locally optimal explanation. And reasoning or interpretations from elsewhere, where it is brought it, are left there as interpretations brought to make things work.

In Kiddushin 13b, it definitely is a haavara, a transfer. The gemara introduces it that they hold (and are teaching here) that Shibud is Biblical, and then asks that they have taught this already once. Then it goes on to cite the foreign sugya, and ends with a slightly different version of Rav Pappa.

אלמא קסבר שיעבודא הוה דאורייתא והא פליגי בה חדא זימנא דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו מלוה על פה אינה גובה מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות ור' יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו מלוה על פה גובה בין מן היורשין בין מן הלקוחות צריכא דאי איתמר בהא בהך קאמר שמואל משום דלא מלוה כתובה בתורה היא אבל בהך אימא מודה להו לרבי יוחנן ולר"ל ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא קאמר ר' יוחנן דמלוה כתובה בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לשמואל צריכא אמר רב פפא הילכתא מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות גובה מן היורשין שיעבודא דאורייתא ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות דלית ליה קלא:

Also of interest is Tosafot there, who ask that Rav Pappa is different in Kiddushin and Bava Batra. But Tosafot's version of Bava Batra is different from ours:

Tosafot, Kiddushin 13b

Namely, they have explicitly in the sefa of Rav Pappa that Shibud is not Biblical. This is a quote from Tosafot, not an explanation by Tosafot. And they harmonize, but that is not our interest.

I would suggest further that, as in the case of Rabba, the primary statement by Rabba is positional, what to do in each case, as stated always in Hebrew. And the explanation (with mai taama for Rabba and bald for Rav Pappa) is the explanation by a setama, and that can be be more fluid across texts.

Bava Basra 152: Mit eyn hintn zitst men nit af tsvey ferd

There is a Yiddish idiom, which appears in various forms, Mit eyn hintn zitst men nit af tsvey ferd. מיט אײן הינטן זיצט מען ניט אױף צװײ פֿערד‫.‬
This appears in English as "You can't ride on two horses with one arse."

This idiom appears at the top of today's daf, Bava Basra 152.

"The academy of Rav said in the name of Rav, you are causing him to ride on two steeds / saddles."

The setama degemara proceeds to interpret this as a positive thing, giving the transaction some of the force of a shechiv mera and some of the force of the kinyan of a healthy person. This is problematic, because it contradicts an explicit statement of Rav elsewhere, that it will not work because a kinyan is the opposite of matnat shechiv mera. But the gemara manages to harmonize it.

This idiom only appears once in Shas, namely here. Later posekim seem to employ it in a very different sense than the setama interprets it, namely that of tartei desasrei (two contradictory aspects which will therefore not work.)

Given that it is an idiom, and it is easy to misinterpret an idiom without direct knowledge of its usage, perhaps we can suggest that the setama degemara misunderstood the idiom. (Yes, they are closer in time and place, so maybe we are misunderstanding it, but on the other hand, we have the other statement of Rav.) If its intent is indeed the same as the Yiddish expression, and the same as the later posekim, then the is the same as Rav's position elsewhere, and the contradiction was never a contradiction, but was rather explicit agreement.

Bava Basra 98a and 102

Bava Basra 98a
http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx…

אמר רבא האי מאן דזבין ליה חביתא דחמרא לחנואה אדעתא לסבוייה

See the dispute between Rashbam and Tosafot. Rashbam asserts that he did not purchase the cask of wine, but agreed to sell on the behalf of the owner. Tosafot (responding to "Rashi", but this is changed by Masores Hashas to Rashbam) say that this cannot be, since the word דזבין is employed, implying that he sold it. Instead Tosafot say he did sell it, and explain difficulties that arise as a result.

However, there is a girsa difference in play. Rashbam does not have the text I cited above. He has:

האי מאן דמזבין ליה חביתא דחמרא לחנווני

while Tosafot have:

האי מאן דזבין חביתא דחמרא אדעתא לסבוייה

Many differences might trigger this difference in understanding. Rashbam has mezabein, to Tosafot's and our gemara's zabein. Rashbam and our gemara have leih (to him) while Tosafot lack leih. Rashbam has lechenvani, our gemara has lechenvaah, and Tosafot lacks it.

So we can read our gemara as "a person who engages in sales on his (?) behalf for shopkeeping" (chenvaah), and this would not present the problem which bothers Tosafot.

Bava Basra 102

The Mishna in Ohalos is better understood in light of Bava Basra 82b:

וכמה יהא ביניהן רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מארבע אמות ועד שמונה רבא אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל משמונה ועד שש עשרה א"ל אביי לרב יוסף לא תפלוג עליה דרב נחמן דתנן מתניתין כוותיה דתנן הנוטע את כרמו שש עשרה אמה על שש עשרה אמה מותר להביא זרע לשם
[If the buyer of three trees is to acquire possession of the ground]. how much [space] must there be between [the trees]?25 — R. Joseph said in the name of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: [A distance] of four to eight cubits [between any two trees]. Raba said in the name of R. Nahman in the name of Samuel: From eight to sixteen [cubits]. Abaye said to R. Joseph: Do not dispute with R. Nahman, for we learnt a Mishnah that is in agreement with him. For we learnt:26 He who plants his vineyard [and leaves distances of] sixteen cubits [between the rows] may insert seed there.27

That is, that the distance of 4 to 8 cubits between corpses is parallel to the 4 to 8 cubits between trees. There, as in the Mishna in Ohalos, selling one tree gives you just the tree and the immediate dirt, as does selling two trees. Three trees makes an orchard and so all the land comes with it. In Ohalos, one and two corpses just have the immediately surrounding dirt. Once we have three, then it is a cemetery (shechunat kevarim), and they cannot be moved.

The setama degemara shoehorns the Mishna in Ohalos into the box presented by our local Mishna, such that the "4 to 8" must be the side of a cave, and thus from the edge of the first of three corpses to the last of three corpses, rather than the space between each corpse and the next. But we are not talking about digging through rock, and the term is shecunat kevarim, not that it is a kever, nor is it (to employ the term used in Ohalos for the same structure in earth) a sedei kuchim.

And then the setama has difficulties making the "4 to 8" accord with the dimensions by either the Tanna Kamma or Rabbi Shimon. The same about the 20 cubits, and the difficulties which arise there.

Thoughts on Bava Batra 74-75

74:
An interesting al tikrei X but Y. Don't read yam but sar shel yam. How does this work? You need to know the Chronicles of Baal, where Baal slays Prince Yam and doesn't let him trespass on dry land. Then you know that Yam is a name. So what we are really saying is don't read yam lowercase but Yam capital.

75:
The derasha from Iyov that the righteous will eat a feast of the Leviathan and that merchants will deal in its flesh is interesting. If you read the many surrounding pesukim, you see that they are all preceded with the interrogative ha-. That is to say, "would you think it so that X?!" The implication is obviously that it is not so. This particular pasuk
  יכרו עליו חברים יחצוהו  בין כנענים

is missing the leading ha-, and it is then taken as a statement of fact about the future use of the Leviathan!

In the following section of gemara, a pasuk with the interrogative ha- is brought. How can they ignore the ha-, to say that it is a plaything?
ההשחק בו כצפור ותקשרנו לנערותיך:

It seems that there, it is saying that obviously humans cannot do it, to the exclusion of Hashem, who can do all this. If so, maybe we would say the same about the pasuk without the ha-, that it still is a question, but Hashem's intervention is different.

Sources for Bava Basra 45

 

Yerushalmi:

דף יג, ב פרק ד הלכה ב משנה  ולא את הבור ולא את הדות אע"פ שכתב לו עומקה ורומה וצריך ליקח לו דרך דברי רבי עקיבה וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך ליקח לו דרך ומודה ר' עקיבה בזמן שאמר לו חוץ מאילו שאינו צריך ליקח לו דרך מכרן לאחר ר' עקיבה אומר אינו צריך ליקח לו דרך וחכמים אומרים צריך ליקח לו דרך:

דף יג, ב פרק ד הלכה ב גמרא  לאיזה דבר כתב עומקה ורומה שאם רצה להשפיל ישפיל הגביה יגביה.  רבה בר רב הונא בשם רב הלכה כרבי עקיבה דידן דהוא רבנן דרבי חייה.  ר' זעירא רב ירמיה בשם רב הלכה כרבי עקיבה דרבי חייה דהוא רבנן דבבלאי. 

תמן אמרין אדמון ורבי עקיבה אמר ר' לא בסתם חלוקין. 
מה נן קיימין אם דבר בריא שיש לו דרך כל עמא מודי שאין צריך ליקח לו דרך אם דבר בריא שאין לו דרך כל עמא מודו שהוא צריך ליקח לו דרך.  אלא כי נן קיימין בסתם רבי עקיבה אומר אינו צריך ליקח לו דרך וחכמים אומרים צריך ליקח לו דרך:

Tosefta:

 ואע"פ שאומר לו הוא וכל מה שבתוכו אני מוכר לך לא מכר לו את הבאר ולא את השידה ולא את הדותות והיציעים ולא את המערות שבתוכו א"כ למה כתב עומקא ורומא שאם רצה להגביה מגביה להשפיל משפיל 

How modern academic Talmud scholars can fulfill timcheh et zecher Amalek

In yesterday’s Daf Yomi, Bava Batra, Moo amud bet, there is a surprising mnemonic, עמלק סימן. That is, the four cases under discussion in the following section are arev (guarantor), malveh (lender), lokeach rishon (first purchaser) and qablan (a different type of guarantor), who may or may not testify on behalf of a certain other party as to ownership of a field. The letters spell out Amalek.

This is surprising, to use Amalek as a mnemonic, when we are supposed to blot out the memory of Amalek. And Hagahot Yaavetz (Rav Yaakov Emden) has an explanation about how it is OK to use it to remember Torah, and how there is a tipcha (disjunctive accent) on the lo of lo tishkash, לֹ֖א תִּשְׁכָּֽח , somehow telling us that it is sometimes OK for the sake of not forgetting.

The Masoret HaShas, besides pointing us to the Hagahot Yaavetz, points out that the Dikdukei Soferim notes that in many kitvei yad, this mnemonic isn’t present.

Thus, for example, we don’t find it in Ktav Yad Firenze, Paris, or Vatican.

Ktav Yad Vatican

Ktav Yad Firenze

Ktav Yad Paris

If so, perhaps we should cross out this siman, this zecher, from our gemaras. In this way, we can literally fulfill the positive command of תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק.

Daf Yomi, Bava Batra 31a:

 טוען וחוזר וטוען או אין טוען וחוזר

This is not immediately obvious, but regarding the dispute between Ulla and the Nehardeans, and more specifically, the clarification of which cases are under dispute, is all about the ambiguity of the word chozer.

The way it was intended is almost purely grammatical that after making his first claim, he continues to present to the court another claim. Sort of like "he went and did X".

There are two other possibilities which are ruled out as not under discussion. First, that chozer means a retraction, such that there is an obvious contradiction between his first and second claim. Second, that chozer means physically returning, such that he left the court to go outside, and then physically returned.

Bava Basra 25 - sources

How to use sources below:

In which we look at:
1) Rashi says that Rabbi Abahu's derasha on Oryah is either Persian and means West, or Laaz (Latin) and means East. The Latin word would be Orient. We can see the Persian word in the Aruch. We would expect Rabbi Abahu in Eretz Yisrael to be darshening the Latin more than the Persian.
2) Considering the dispute about how the sun gets backs to its position in the east each morning.
3) Rava's reinterpretation of West being tedira as referring to the location of the Shechina seems farfetched. We see in the Yerushalmi that Abaye appears to hold by the simple meaning, that it is the prevailing wind direction. We could interpret the brayta about the constant contribution of the North wind as referring to something else not contradictory.
At WindFinder dot com, you can see historical dominant wind directions for the past twelve years, at various spots in Israel, and at least for Tel Aviv, how that is the one coming from the West.
4) No, bees don't eat their honey after tasting mustard. They love mustard, and beekeepers suggest it as a bee crop. But the mustard nectar does give a distinctive color, aroma, and flavor. Rabbi Yossi famously says regarding this (or the three cases in the Mishna) that each damages the other. So when we have a statement that:
מפני שפי הדבורים חד ומחריבות הדבש
Perhaps we can reinterpret it. Not that they eat their own honey to get rid of the bad mustard taste. Rather, the mouth of the bees is sharp and destroys the plants. And the mustard destroys the honey by making it honey-mustard.
Regarding the image (from peanut butter cups):
"You got your honey in my mustard!"
"You got your mustard in my honey!"

_________________
Regarding Rashi, the Laaz / Latin word is Orient. What is the Persian word?

Aruch:

“These things being so we shall say, agreeably to what we find in divine scripture, that the sun issuing from the east traverses the sky in the south and ascends northwards, and becomes visible to the whole of the inhabited world. But as the northern and western summit intervenes it produces night in the ocean beyond this earth of ours, and also in the earth beyond the ocean; then afterwards when the sun is in the west, where he is hidden by the highest portion of the earth, and runs his course over the ocean through the northern parts, his presence there makes it night for us, until in describing his orbit he comes again to the east, and again ascending the southern sky illumines the inhabited world, as the divine scripture says through the divine Solomon: “The sun riseth and the sun goeth down and hasteth to his own place. Rising there, he goeth to the south, and wheeleth his circuit, and the wind turneth round to his circuits.” (Christian Topography, part II) Cosmas Indicopleustes-6th Century

Regarding Tedira: 

Abaye in Yerushalmi appears to dispute the diyuk of Rava, that tedira refers to Shechina.

פרק ב הלכה ח משנה  מרחיקין את הנבילות ואת הקברו' ואת הבורסקי מן העיר חמשים אמה ואין עושין בורסקי אלא למזרח העיר ר' עקיבה אומר לכל רוח הוא עושה חוץ מן המערבה ומרחיק חמשים אמה:

דף ו, ב פרק ב הלכה ח גמרא  ר' אבהו בשם רבי יוחנן עד מקום שעושה גלד.  דבית ר' ינאי אמרי עד מקום שעומד ומריח.  ותני כן ר' עקיבה אומר לכל רוח הוא עושה ומרחיק חוץ מן המערבה מפני שהיא תדירה.  רבי מנא היה מהלך עם מוכי שחין אמר ליה אביי לא תהלוך ממדינחיה אלא ממערביה:

דף ו, ב פרק ב הלכה ט משנה  מרחיקין את המשרה מן הירק ואת הכרישין מן הבצלים ואת החרדל מן הדבורים רבי יוסי מתיר בחרדל:

דף ו, ב פרק ב הלכה ט גמרא  תני מרחיקין את הבצלים מן הכרישין ור' לעזר בר' שמעון מתיר.  א"ר יעקב בן דוסאי מגו אילין מתניתא כשם שזה מרחיק זה מזה כך זה מרחיק זה מזה.  רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוסי בן חנינה מפני שפי הדבורים חד ומחריבות הדבש:

From WindFinder.Com, the dominant wind might indeed be a westerly wind:

Dominant Wind Direction, Tel Aviv/Ben Gurion:

Nes Tsiyona:

Do the bees really suffer from eating the mustard and then consume the honey in the hive? No, but the mustard nectar affects the taste of the honey, perhaps in a good way, but there is no accounting for taste.

Bee Value of White Mustard

Considered an excellent bee plant, white mustard brings nectar along with fair quality yellow pollen. The floriferous plants bloom for about a month.

The nectar is easily accessible to bees. Plants yield quite a bit of nectar, up to 1.1 mg per blossom daily. This contains 50 to 60 per-cent sugar concentration.

White mustard can bring a good honey crop of 25 to 100 pounds per colony. The honey can vary in color, but is typically light colored to mustard yellow. When first extracted, it can have a mustard-like aroma.

Although the flavor is initially so strong it can burn the mouth, this mellows with time. Granulating rather rapidly, the honey should be extracted promptly. It has been known to ferment.

"You got your honey in my mustard!"

"You got your mustard in my honey!"

דף ו, ב

Bava Basra 20b-21b: zecher vs. zeicher

1) In the Mishna at the bottom of 20b, the simple difference is between the objection to intruders, that is, foot traffic making noise and making the courtyard into a less private area, and noise intrinsic to the work. The children studying (or playing) make noise, but this is not the same as making the courtyard into a public thoroughfare.

The various braytot saying one may not establish a school obviously are contradictory to our Mishna and Rava, and claiming that it refers to gentile schoolchildren is a forced answer. It seems more like a matter of Tannaitic dispute. By reinterpreting those other sources, one establishes like the law in the Mishna and like Rava. Meanwhile, the easy answer was not offered by the gemara, that Rava (or by the setama degamara immediately after Rava) already made the necessary distinction, namely ומתקנת יהושע בן גמלא ואילך. Those other braytot were talking about before this takkana, so there would be more intruders, from far off. Or the takkana placed greater importance on this teaching, such that it would override the objections.

2) In terms of punishing a student:

Artscroll’s footnote #10 is based (at least in part) on the next Rashi, or at least that is what they link to. I wonder if this is deliberate.

3) The story with Yoav and reading zecher as referring to males. Artscroll writes it as זְכַר, zechar, with a sheva under the zayin and a patach under the chaf:

This makes some grammatical sense. The idea is that zechar is the construct form (males-of) and would be vocalized in this way, rather than the absolute form (males), which would be vocalized as zachar.

Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Goldberg told me of an interesting explanation from Rav Meshulam Roth (see here) that the difference is between zecher (segol segol) and zeicher (tzeirei segol). With the improper segol segol, it is parallel to eshen hakivshan, a construct form, where the absolute form is ashan. So with segol segol, Yoav believes that it was the construct form of zachar, males.

Shadal uses this as a proof that they didn’t have nikkud in the times of Yoav, because otherwise, “how did the teacher of Yoav not see any sefer which had the nikkud under ther word zecher in the verse timche et zecher Amalek, such that he taught Yoav z'char with a sheva under the zayin and a patach under the chaf?”

(Artscroll presents Tosafot’s read of the gemara, with the teacher knowing it to be zeicher, and answering the adult Yoav with zeicher, but not having corrected Yoav as a child.)

I would add that if Chazal had written nikkud, and / or names for the nikkud, this would be one of the places in which they would have utilized it, at the very least to disambiguate which reading the teacher had, instead of writing the difficult to disambiguate:

אמר ליה והא אנן זכר קרינן א"ל אנא זכר אקריון אזל שייליה לרביה אמר ליה היאך אקריתן אמר ליה זכר

This and other instances in which Chazal should have used nikkud or referred to nikkud by name is telling.

Thoughts on Bava Batra 10b-11b

1)
רבי אבא אמר מהכא (ישעיהו לג, טז) הוא מרומים ישכון מצדות סלעים משגבו לחמו נתן מימיו נאמנים מה טעם מרומים ישכון מצדות סלעים משגבו משום דלחמו נתן ומימיו נאמנים
The derasha might well be also a revocalization, of sela'im mishegavu, *coins* (rather than rocks) when collected.

2)
אלא א"כ ממונה עליה כרבי חנניא בן תרדיון.
See Tosafot. It is a common mistake to judge the value of a person, particularly in the religious sphere, based on a single measure. More accurate would be a vector of characteristics, such as honesty, trustworthiness (like R' Chananya ben Tradyon), mindfulness (like Elisha), empathy, commitment to God, fear of sin, and so on.

3) Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai had his own understanding of the pasuk, yet still encouraged his students to develop their own paths and their own novel interpretations. Interestingly, almost all the students' interpretations line up and have a novelty only in one feature, based on different prooftexts. And none of these really like up with Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's own interpretation.

11b:
אבותי גנזו במקום שהיד שולטת בו ואני גנזתי במקום שאין היד שולטת בו
Wouldn't they have eventually melted?

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

The Torah Temimah on Esav's Five Sins

Torah Temimah

Summary: He explains the derashot in the gem
ara in Bava Batra, fixes a broken girsa in a way that turns out to correspond to manuscripts, and explains why Rashi goes to a distant location to explain an Aramaic word, rather than simply looking to Onkelos on our own pasuk. I weigh in on some of this at the end.

Post: On Bava Batra 16:

אמר רבי יוחנן חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע באותו היום בא על נערה מאורסה והרג את הנפש וכפר בעיקר וכפר בתחיית המתים ושט את הבכורה בא על נערה מאורסה כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה וכתיב התם(דברים כב, כז) כי בשדה מצאה הרג את הנפש כתיב הכא עיף וכתיב התם (ירמיהו ד, לא) אוי נא לי כי עיפה נפשי להורגים וכפר בעיקר כתיב הכא (ירמיהו ו, כ) למה זה לי וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו וכפר בתחיית המתים דכתיב (בראשית כה, לב) הנה אנכי הולך למות ושט את הבכורה דכתיב (בראשית כה, לד) ויבז עשו את הבכורה

Or, in English:

R. Johanan said: That wicked [Esau] committed five sins on that day [27]. He dishonoured a betrothed maiden, he committed a murder, he denied God [28], he denied the resurrection of the dead, and he spurned the birthright. [We know that] he dishonoured a betrothed maiden, because it is written here, "And Esau came in from the field",  and it is written in another place [in connection with the betrothed maiden], "He found her in the field".   [We know that] he committed murder, because it is written here [that he was] faint, and it is written in another place, "Woe is me now, for my soul fainteth before the murderers".   [We know that] he denied God [30], because it is written here, "What benefit is this to me", and it is written in another place, "This is my God and I will make him an habitation".   [We know that] he denied the resurrection of the dead because he said, "Behold, I am on the way to die" [29]: also that he spurned the birthright because it is written, So Esau despised his birthright [31].

Rabbi Baruch Epstein, the Torah Temima, cites this, though reorders one of the items, as discussed below. He comments as follows:

27) And it continues and explains each detail of the sin based on a specific language in this verse. And behold, although in general one can explain this verse in accordance with its simple meaning, and these derashot are only hints and allusions, even so, it is the approach of Chazal, to attribute the negative to a negative person, as is stated in Bava Batra 109b, and as we explain this approach of Chazal, the authors of the Talmud about in parashat Lech Lecha, upon the pasuk 'and Lot lifted up his eyes [Bereishit 13:10], see there and combine it with the material here.

28) In the nusach of the gemara before us, there is earlier that he denied the fundamental belief, and afterwards, that he denied the resurrection of the dead.

And it appears that this is a scribal error, and one needs to place first the denial of resurrection of the dead, since this derasha is based on the language of 'behold I am going to die', and the denial in the fundamental belief is based upon the language of 'and what purpose is this to me'. And the language of 'behold I am...' is earlier in the pasuk than the language of 'and what purpose is this to me'. And therefore we have recorded it [in his own citation in Torah Temimah] according to the order that is written.

And after this I saw this version in a manuscript Shas, and so too in the Yalkut the girsa is as we have recorded it, and I give praise to Hashem upon the correctness of the estimation.

29) The implication of this is that he intended to deny the continuation of the eternal soul, since if not so, what is this that which he said 'behold I am going to die'? For did it enter his mind that he would live forever? And see that which I write about, item 27.

30) It appears that he is darshening the  superfluity of this word zeh, for it should have said 'and for what purpose to me is the firstborn right' [rather than 'and for what purpose to me is zeh the firstborn right']. And in general it is explained that the import of the language of zeh is that it is connoting the pointing to something with a finger to that very thing, as in Taanit 31a, 'Hashem sits in Gan Eden among the tzaddikim and each of them points to Him with a finger, as is stated [in Yeshaya 25:9], 'and 

ט  וְאָמַר בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, הִנֵּה אֱלֹהֵינוּ זֶה קִוִּינוּ לוֹ וְיוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ; זֶה ה קִוִּינוּ לוֹ, נָגִילָה וְנִשְׂמְחָה בִּישׁוּעָתוֹ.

9 And it shall be said in that day: 'Lo, this is our God, for whom we waited, that He might save us; this is the LORD, for whom we waited, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.'

and in Sotah 11b upon the pasuk brought here, 'zeh [this] is my God and I will beautify Him', this says that each of them, upon the [Reed] Sea, as if it were possible, recognized Hashem and said 'this is my God'. And in Menachot 29a, 'the forms of three things were difficult to Moshe until Hashem showed it to him with a finger', and they learn there from that it is written regarding those things the language of zeh, see there. 

And in Yerushalmi Sotah, perek 1, halacha 10, they darshen upon the pasuk at the end of parashat Vaychi, [Bereshit 50:11]

יא  וַיַּרְא יוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אֶת-הָאֵבֶל, בְּגֹרֶן הָאָטָד, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֵבֶל-כָּבֵד זֶה לְמִצְרָיִם; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ, אָבֵל מִצְרַיִם, אֲשֶׁר, בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן.

11 And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad, they said: 'This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians.' Wherefore the name of it was called Abel-mizraim, which is beyond the Jordan.

This teaches that they pointed with their finger to Yaakov's coffin. And in Mechilta, parashat Bo, 'because of this [zeh] Hashem did for me', because of this this, I am only speaking of at the time that Matzah and Maror are placed before you upon the table. And this is that it would be possible to point them out with a finger. And they learn this from the language of 'because of zeh.' 

And behold, here, there is not to say that Esav pointed to the right of the firstborn with a finger, for behold this is something spiritual and refined, and as well, in general, the word zeh is superfluous, as I explained above. And therefore they darshened it via the path of hint and allusion based on that which is explained further in Menachot 53b, zeh -- this is Hashem, for it is written zeh Eli vaanveihu.

And so too in Zohar parashat Vaychi, 228a, the Holy Spirit is called zeh, for we always find it with him with people. {?} 

And they darshened that he [Esav] pointed with a finger Upward and said 'what is Zeh to me', and this is an extension and explanation of the language of 'and what is zeh to me the firstborn right', as if he said 'and what is Zeh to me, and also why should I need the firstborn right', one question based on two particulars. And there are found like this in Tanach, and they support this with a gezeira shava of zeh-zeh to Zeh Eli VaAnveihu, for there it is precisely the opposite of denial, for it is recognition and thanks, as I wrote. And see further that which I wrote above, item 27.

31) Rashi explained [there on the gemara in Bava Batra] as follows:

ושט את הבכורה - וביזה את העבודה שהיתה בבכורות שט תרגום של בזיון מדוע הקילתני (שמואל ב יט) תרגום יונתן אשטתני:

 He scorned the [sacrificial] service that was for the firstborns, for shat is the Aramaic translation of scorn, such as in II Shmuel 19, וּמַדּוּעַ הֱקִלֹּתַנִי, [why did you despise us], the Targum Yonatan is אשטתני.

And this that he wrote that the sacrificial service was with firstborns, its import is explained in Zevachim 112b, that until the Mishkan was erected, the firstborns would serve in bringing sacrifices in place of the Kohanim.

And this that he brought a proof to the translated meaning of shata from the pasuk in Shmuel,  וּמַדּוּעַ הֱקִלֹּתַנִי, the commentators are stirred up why he brought it from so far away the meaning of veshata, for in this pasuk itself the Targum of vayivez is veshat. And this is indeed a great and astonishing thing.

And it seems regarding this that apparently the language of the gemara is difficult, and why did it not say in the language of the pasuk, uviza et habechora. And one must say that the intent of the gemara is to magnify the evil of Esav, that it was not enough that he was bizah the firstborn rights in his heart, for such is the import of the language BZH, as is written (II Shmuel 6:16), 

טז  וְהָיָה אֲרוֹן ה, בָּא עִיר דָּוִד; וּמִיכַל בַּת-שָׁאוּל נִשְׁקְפָה בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן, וַתֵּרֶא אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד מְפַזֵּז וּמְכַרְכֵּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, וַתִּבֶז לוֹ, בְּלִבָּהּ.

16 And it was so, as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, that Michal the daughter of Saul looked out at the window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD; and she despised him in her heart.

but rather ever more so he was shata, and he made light of, actively and publicly. And upon this Rashi brings as proof that the menaing of shata is bizayon with actual action, for such is the Targum of the language  וּמַדּוּעַ הֱקִלֹּתַנִי, and there it was a making light of in similar manner to this, actively and publicly. And adds to explain what was the active scorning that he scorned the firstborn rights, and he explains that he scorned the sacrificial service that was performed by firstborns. And the matter of the scorning is explained in Midrash Rabba, that he brought in with him a group of pritzim who mocked the purchasing Yaakov made of the firstborn, see there."

End quote.

My thoughts are as follows.

#28: In terms of the variant girsa, here is one such Talmudic text that has the two denials, and their derivation, transposed:

תלמוד בבלי

Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale , II.1.8-9

בבא בתרא טז ע"ב - בבא בתרא יז ע"א

The Munich Manuscript has the same, with denial of resurrection before denial of God:

So too this one:

Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale , Suppl. Heb. 1337

בבא בתרא טז ע"ב - בבא בתרא יז ע"א

However, this manuscript has it as we have it, with denial of God first:

Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica , Ebr. 115

בבא בתרא טז ע"ב - בבא בתרא יז ע"א

It does make sense that it would be in order of the derasha from the pasuk, and thus on the order of the pasuk. And the repetition of the word וכפר can account for the accidental transposition.

#31: An interesting question, indeed, as to why Rashi didn't just point to Targum Onkelos on the pasuk in question. I would perhaps differ slightly from what the Torah Temimah says here. Vayivez does not need to specifically mean in one's heart or in externally. His prooftext from Michal's feelings towards David, in her heart, demonstrates that it can include such feelings in one's heart. (Targum there does not use the root of shat.) It depends on context. It could also theoretically include external scorning.

I don't know that Esav scorned externally, or that Rashi was trying to say that he scorned externally. I think that Rashi would not point to the Targum on very same pasuk to show what veShat means because Rabbi Yochanan certainly seems to be making a derivation of vayivez, and so translating veShat back to vayivez gives us absolutely zero new information. The lexical item vayivez might carry many different implications. By finding a place that it is used to translate a different Hebrew word, we get more insight into just which shade of meaning of vayivez Rabbi Yochanan was intending.

In terms of the gemara, and perhaps even in terms of Rashi, I could imagine that the scorning / despising was indeed done in his heart, and not externally. But this was not just by implication, by treating it so lightly as to sell it for a pot of beans. Rather, that the pasuk takes pains to inform us of this, Rabbi Yochanan darshens as a statement of Esav's internal mental status, that he made light of it, in his own heart.