Non-cryptic Burial

I grappled a lot with the daf on Shabbat, Bava Batra 102a. I wasn’t the only one. There was a massive amount of Tosafot on the sugya:

which was actually a continuation of Tosafot on the preceding daf. And long Rashbams at the top of the amud, so they weren’t just explaining phrases, but trying to kvetch a workable peshat into the sugya. Even after all that, mathematical difficulties remain.

Also, Rif just has the Tanna Kamma on the Mishna and nothing else. Rosh has the Mishnah and nothing else. And Nimukei Yosef effectively says, “you know, I could explain this Mishnah but it would be a lot to write, and our modern burial practices don’t match this anyway, so I prefer not to.”

(So, when I propose my radical idea, I’m not really arguing on any actual halacha lemaaseh.)

The Torah says כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה, which contrary to many homiletical divrei Torah, means to contrast men and trees. Still, here, I’m indeed going to compare them, in terms of the language used by Chazal.

In Bava Batra 81a, the Mishna:

מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹנֶה שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא קָנָה קַרְקַע. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: קָנָה קַרְקַע. הִגְדִּילוּ – לֹא יְשַׁפֶּה. וְהָעוֹלֶה מִן הַגֶּזַע – שֶׁלּוֹ; וּמִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁים – שֶׁל בַּעַל הַקַּרְקַע. וְאִם מֵתוּ – אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע.

MISHNA: With regard to one who buys two trees in the field of another, this one has not acquired any ground, but only the trees. Rabbi Meir says: He has acquired the ground under them. The mishna states a halakha in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna: If the trees grew, the owner of the field may not cut down their branches, despite the fact that their shade damages his field. And that which grows out of the trunk is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the tree, but that which grows out of the roots belongs to the owner of the ground. And if the trees died, their owner has no rights to the ground where the trees had stood.

קָנָה שְׁלֹשָׁה – קָנָה קַרְקַע. הִגְדִּילוּ – יְשַׁפֶּה. וְהָעוֹלֶה מִן הַגֶּזַע וּמִן הַשׇּׁרָשִׁין – שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם מֵתוּ – יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע.

If one bought three trees, he has acquired the ground along with them. If they grew, the owner of the field may cut down their branches, as he sold a specific piece of land along with the trees, not his entire field. And that which grows out of the trunk and out of the roots is his, i.e., it belongs to the owner of the trees. And if the trees died, the owner of the trees still has possession of the ground, as it was sold along with the trees.

There is a distinction between buying one or two trees, where you just get the trees, and buying three trees, which is an orchard, where you also get the land between them.

Yet, those three trees cannot be too far apart, or they are once again simply individual trees. Also, they cannot be clustered to close together, or else they don’t each have the individual status to add up to three trees in an orchard. The distance between the trees is specified on 82b:

וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בֵּינֵיהֶן? רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמוֹנֶה. רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִשְּׁמוֹנֶה וְעַד שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לָא תִּפְלוֹג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דִּתְנַן מַתְנִיתִין כְּווֹתֵיהּ –

The Gemara inquires: And how much space must there be between the three trees for them to be considered one unit, which means that the land is acquired by the owner of the trees? Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The distance between the trees must be from four cubits to eight cubits. Rava says that Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: It must be from eight cubits to sixteen cubits. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do not disagree with Rav Naḥman, as we learned in a mishna in accordance with his opinion.

So, two traditions in the eventual name of Shmuel, either four to eight or eight to sixteen. This doesn’t mean that four through eight is the distance from the first tree to the third tree. Rather, it is between the first and second, excluding their trunks, and between the second and third, excluding their trunks.

Note the specific language מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמוֹנֶה and its meaning, because it is about to be relevant.

Now, let us go back to Bava Batra 102. The preceding daf, 101, was all about crypts. There was a crypt of certain dimensions, say 4 x 6 or 6 x 8 cubits, depending on who you asked. Lining the long and short walls of the crypt were cuchim, chambers in which the corpses were placed. And these crypts led into courtyards of other dimensions, and many crypts come out of one courtyard. See that sugya and the diagrams there.

None of this works well with Bava Batra 102. I would claim that we are not dealing with crypts, but a different means of burial. Why? Maybe it’s a different time or place (though Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai does weigh in in both discussions). Maybe it is the initial burial for a time span, after which they collected to bones (likut atzamot) to place them in the permanent family crypts described in the previous page. Maybe we are dealing with miscarried fetuses, the ones mentioned by Rav Shisha b. Rav Idi (bar Avin). Maybe we are dealing with an area without caverns, or where any cavern walls collapsed (nefilei).

My assumption is that these are graves found buried in a field, rather than in crypts. On to the gemara, which begins at the bottom of 101b:

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַמּוֹצֵא מֵת מוּשְׁכָּב כְּדַרְכּוֹ, נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּפוּסָתוֹ. שְׁנַיִם – נוֹטְלָן וְאֶת תְּפוּסָתָן.

§ The Gemara considers another mishna that relates to the structure of a catacomb: We learned in a mishna there (Nazir 64b): With regard to one who finds a corpse while inspecting a place that was not previously established as a cemetery, to ensure that it is free of ritual impurity, and the corpse is lying in the usual manner of Jewish burial, he removes it from there and also removes its surrounding earth. And similarly, if he finds two corpses buried in the usual manner, he removes them and their surrounding earth. Since only one or two corpses were found, it may be assumed that the area is not a cemetery; therefore, the corpses may be removed.

מָצָא שְׁלֹשָׁה – אִם יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן מֵאַרְבַּע עַד שְׁמוֹנֶה, הֲרֵי זוֹ שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת, וּבוֹדֵק מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה. מָצָא אֶחָד בְּסוֹף עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה – בּוֹדֵק מִמֶּנּוּ וּלְהַלָּן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. שֶׁאִילּוּ מִתְּחִלָּה מְצָאוֹ – נוֹטְלוֹ וְאֶת תְּפוּסָתוֹ.

If he found three corpses lying parallel to each other, then if there is between them, i.e., the outer two corpses, a distance of four to eight cubits, then this is presumed to be a graveyard and the corpses may not be removed, and he must examine from that spot outward twenty cubits to discover whether there are other corpses buried there. If he finds even one corpse up to the distance of twenty cubits, he must continue to examine from the place he finds that corpse outward another twenty cubits. He continues to search for additional corpses, even if only one corpse was found within the twenty cubits, as there is a basis for anticipating the matter; it is probable that he has stumbled upon an ancient cemetery. He is not permitted to relocate the corpses, despite that fact that if he had found the single corpse by itself at first, without being aware of the gravesite, he would have been permitted to remove it and its surrounding earth.

But ignore aspects of the English translation, like “the outer two corpses.”

This is parallel to the trees and orchard. One found corpse buried in a field, it has its own individual status, so you can relocate it together with the underlying earth. So too two corpses, each still has individual status. Once you have three corpses, that becomes a neighborhood of graves, just like three trees make an orchard.

אִם יֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן מֵאַרְבַּע עַד שְׁמוֹנֶה means between the first and second corpse, not including its width, and the same from the second to the third. Recall the language used by trees.

Why search 20 cubits? Because maybe the whole area is a graveyard, so you search. You find another at the end of 20, it seems like the graveyard indeed has spread out, so search yet another 20 in the field.

Various classic approaches, which follow the lead of the Talmudic Narrator (Stamma) assume that a שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת is the same as מערה / crypt from the previous day. Therefore, “from four to eight cubits” means is that you found the three corpses parallel to one another, and from the edge of the first to the edge of the third is either four cubits or eight cubits. It would be four if it was the shorter wall of the crypt and eight if it were the long wall of the crypt.

The Stamma assumes this, then cannot find a Tanna who gives these dimensions. It is neither Rabbi Shimon nor the Rabbanan. Unmentioned is that this also makes a distance between individual chambers (cuchim) about a tefach, which is shorter than was possible in the preceding crypt gemara. And introduces other aspects that would resolve questions in the preceding crypt gemara.

The Stamma then proposes another Rabbi Shimon, as cited by Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, in a brayta that talks about “from four to eight” but with the corpses too close together.

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְהַאי תַּנָּא הוּא – דְּתַנְיָא: מְצָאָן רְצוּפִין, וְאֵין בֵּינֵיהֶן מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת עַד שְׁמוֹנֶה – יֵשׁ לָהֶן תְּפוּסָה, וְאֵין לָהֶן שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: רוֹאִין אֶת הָאֶמְצָעִיִּים כְּאִילּוּ אֵינָן, וְהַשְּׁאָר מִצְטָרְפִין מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְעַד שְׁמוֹנֶה.

The Gemara answers: Actually this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and it is in accordance with another version of Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, which is cited by this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: If one found three corpses lying in close succession, and there is not a distance of four cubits to eight cubits between them, i.e., they are lying closer together, they have the halakha of the requirement to move their surrounding earth in which they are buried. But they are not considered to be part of a graveyard, since permanent graves are not placed so closely together. Perforce, their corpses were originally buried there on a temporary basis, but then they were never reinterred. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: The corpses in the middle are viewed as if they are not there, i.e., as if they were buried there incidentally, and the other corpses thereby combine to form a graveyard in which corpses are found with a distance of four cubits to eight cubits between them.

Again, no one is mentioning a מערה, a crypt. It is a שְׁכוּנַת קְבָרוֹת. The idea is to remove the middle row. According to the Stamma’s understanding, after the removal, there would still presumably need to be three corpses with four (to eight) cubits from the outer to the other outer. A simpler explanation is as I gave it above - the distance is from one corpse to the next, and from that to the next. So say you have five which are spaced three cubits apart, removing alternating ones will still give you a spacing of six, which is within the four to eight cubit span.

Next, the Stamma grapples with 20. It seems like the resolution is that there is a ma’arah of some dimension, then a chatzer of another dimension, and another ma’arah of the original dimension. This must add up to 20 cubits, and they work out whether this can work for Rabbi Shimon vs. the Sages. Within my proposed interpretation, that isn’t difficult nor necessary to work out.

But say it is the Stamma’s interpretation. Why, when you find one at a 20 cubit distance, would you then have to search another 20 cubit distance?! That additional doesn’t seem to bear any relation to crypt construction.

---

The big problem with all I’ve said is this. I am far more comfortable challenging the Stamma than a named Amora. However, a named Amora does appear within the seemingly Stammaic framework. Namely, moving on to 102b:

רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּנִיפְלֵי.

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and here we are dealing with a case where the corpses found were of non-viable newborns buried in a smaller chamber only six cubits long. Adding a courtyard of six cubits and another regular-sized chamber of eight cubits yields a total length of the catacomb of twenty cubits.

Assuming we read Taanit 13a right (and he defends “Abba / Father” to Abaye there), he is the son of Rav Idi bar Avin I, so approximately a fifth-generation Amora. And he operates within this framework, explaining how it works with Rabbi Shimon. Though Hachi Garsinan has a manuscript in which he’s briefer, and doesn’t mention לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.

How could I defend by suggestion? I can think of a few ways, in which Rav Sheisha is injected into the Stammaic framework, but really meant something else:

1. We just saw him say the same statement a page before, right before our present sugya. He suggested fetuses buried in the diagonal chambers off the crypts, so there wasn’t an overlap problem. Maybe that was the primary location of his statement, and this statement is being reused.
   
   While tempting, that doesn’t match the text. Rather, in that sugya on 101b, the text reads וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְאָמַר רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: בְּנִיפְלֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי בְּנִיפְלֵי. So it is the Stamma explicitly channeling Rav Sheisha from elsewhere, and it is now that we have encountered the elsewhere. Our sugya is primary and that sugya is secondary.
   

2. Maybe as a standalone statement, he is saying that these nefilei are not being buried in crypts, but in fields. So we shouldn’t try to get these two Mishnayot to work together.
   

3. Also as a standalone statement, he could be talking about collapse. See Moed Katan 2, דְּאָתֵי לְאִינְּפוֹלֵי, that the walls of the new spring are liable to collapse. So again, crypts are not in play.

I don’t have an entirely satisfying answer, but at least I got to kvetch about it a bit.