JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ava meẒia
ited in Caesarea, no later than 350 C.E., while the rest of the
Jerusalem Talmud was edited in Tiberias, some 50 years later.
Among its distinguishing features are the short, pithy nature
of the discussions, indicating a minimum of editing; a more
primitive talmudic terminology; archaic Hebrew words; a
relatively wider use of Greek and Latin (Caesarea was the
seat of the Roman government in Palestine); and a distinctive
orthography (e.g., - ָל for אָל). Anonymous statements in
Nezikin are quoted elsewhere in the Jerusalem Talmud in the
name of “the sages of Caesarea,” or in the name of specific
amoraim who lived in Caesarea. When points of law relating
to Nezikin are discussed elsewhere in the Jerusalem Talmud,
the treatment differs from the parallels in Nezikin. Conversely,
sections of Nezikin which discuss matters relating to
other tractates do not correspond to the material found in the
relevant section of those tractates, although it is reasonable
to assume that they were present in the corresponding tractates
of the Talmud collection used by the editor of Nezikin.
All this leads to the conclusion that Nezikin differs from the
other tractates of the Jerusalem Talmud and constitutes the
only existing remnant of the “Talmud of Caesarea.” This issue
has recently been reexamined by Y. Sussman, who arrived at
different conclusions.
Aside from the regular editions, commentaries and translations,
Bava Kamma has received special scholarly attention
with the publication of a new critical edition of the Jerusalem
Talmud of Massekhet Nezikin, edited by E.S. Rosenthal with
commentary by S. Lieberman, and a comparative study of the
Mishnah and Tosefta by Abraham Goldberg.
Bibliography: A. Weiss, Diyyunim u-Verurim be-Vava
Kamma (1966); S. Lieberman, in: Tarbiz, 2 (1931), Suppl. 4; L. Jacobs,
Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology (1961), 132–5; M. Silberg,
Harvard Law Review, 75 (1961), 307–31; Epstein, Amora’im, 279–87;
S. Lieberman, Sifrei Zutta (1968); S. Friedman, (ed.), Jonathan ha-
Kohen’s Commentary to Bava Kamma (1969). Add. Bibliography:
Y. Sussman, in: Talmudic Studies (1990), 55–133; Yerushalmi Neziqin,
ed. E.S. Rosenthal (1983); A. Goldberg, Tosefta Bava Kamma:
A Structural and Analytical Commentary (2001); A. Westreich, Sidra,
19 (2004), 77–100.
[Shamma Friedman]
BAVA MEẒIA (Aram. אעי ָ ִצ ְמ אָ בָ ּב, “middle gate”), tractate of
the Mishnah, with Gemara in the Jerusalem and Babylonian
*Talmuds. Originally Bava Meẓia was not a separate tractate
but the second part of the tractate Nezikin (see *Bava Kamma).
Chapters 1 and 2 deal with the laws of *acquisition (kinyan)
of lost or abandoned articles and describe the cases in which
the article may not be acquired by the finder but must be held
until claimed. These regulations are thus related to the laws of
the last two chapters of Bava Kamma, which determine how
and under what circumstances stolen articles may be legitimately
acquired and under what circumstances they must be
returned. Great religious importance is attached to the commandment
of returning lost property: if a man returns a lost
animal and it escapes again, he must continue to return it, even
“100 times” (31a). Nonetheless, exemption is granted from this
commandment if its performance would require violation of
a ritual prohibition, entail behavior which is an affront to the
personal dignity of the finder, or require the finder to neglect
his own work and thereby sustain a financial loss greater than
the object’s value (30a). Chapter 2:9 reads like a new beginning
and probably represents the incorporation of a new source,
originally a Midrash on Deuteronomy 22:1. It closes with a
section which is religious and moral in tone, thus marking
the end of a unit.
An unpaid guardian, with whom goods were deposited
for safekeeping, is discussed in chapter 3. He resembles one
who guards found property (ch. 2), and also must, on some
occasions, sell perishables deposited with him and hold the
proceeds for the owner. If the guardian misuses the object, he
is considered a robber and must assume all responsibility for
subsequent damage. Chapter 4 opens with the general rules for
acquiring movable property in a business transaction. Transfer
of title to the buyer occurs, not at the time of payment, but
only when the buyer takes the item (or symbolically “draws”
it to himself). This means that the sale can be legally canceled
even after payment, as long as the goods have not been
“drawn”; but the sages said, “He that exacted punishment from
the generation of the Flood … will exact punishment from
him that does not abide by his spoken word” (4:2). However,
R. Johanan held that originally payment of some amount of
money effected the transfer of title, but that since this law led
to abuse – the seller would not deliver but say, “Your wheat was
destroyed by fire in the storeroom” – the rule was changed to
its present form (46b). The remainder of the chapter contains
a detailed section on ona’ah, unfair and illegal business practices
(based on Lev. 25:17). Much attention is given to overcharging;
the law guarantees redress to the party defrauded of
one-sixth or more of the value of the purchase.
Chapter 5 is a self-contained unit dealing with the laws
of interest (see Lev. 25:36); it appears here probably by virtue
of its association with the regulations on commerce found
in chapter 4, and closes with a section emphasizing the ethical
seriousness of the prohibition (see Tosef. 6:17). Chapter 6
opens with cases of deception between employer and craftsmen,
which can be considered a continuation of the theme of
ona’ah found in chapter 4. The first Mishnah is followed by a
series of mishnayot each beginning with the words, “If a man
hired….” They deal with breach of contract in cases of hiring
craftsmen or work animals. The final section concerns itself
with craftsmen who work with others’ material but on their
own premises; they have the status of “paid guardian” and are
responsible for loss or theft. Chapter 7 gives rules of labor relations
and the right of the employee, especially the agricultural
worker, to eat from the produce of the field. This law reflects
the interpretation that Deuteronomy 23:25–26 refers specifically
to the agricultural worker and not to any passerby, for
granting to the latter the rights of eating the field’s produce
would not yield a viable situation for the owner (92a). The duty
of the farmer to allow his animal to eat of the produce (Deut.
25:4) is also treated. The discussion of the right of those who
226 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3