Public Path vs. Public Domain

On a recent daf, Bava Batra 104,

תָּנָא: אִם הָיָה סָמוּךְ לְשָׂדֵהוּ – אֲפִילּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא, מַחֲזִיר לוֹ קַרְקַע.

A Sage taught in a baraita: If the field being sold was adjacent to another field belonging to the seller, then even if the surplus was of a minimal amount, the buyer can return the land itself to the seller, and the seller cannot demand payment in money. This is because the seller loses nothing when he receives a small tract of land, as he can cultivate it along with his adjoining field.

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בּוֹר, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? אַמַּת הַמַּיִם, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלָא, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Ashi raises a set of dilemmas: With regard to a pit between the surplus in the sold field and the adjoining field belonging to the seller, what is the halakha: Should the pit be considered an interposition between the two fields? With regard to a water channel between the two fields, what is the halakha: Should the water channel be considered an interposition? With regard to the public thoroughfare, what is the halakha: Should the public thoroughfare be considered an interposition? With regard to a row of palm trees, what is the halakha: Should a row of palm trees be considered an interposition? The Gemara states: All these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

That is, Rav Ashi’s dilemmas are placed upon a specific brayta about excess land but where more of the seller’s land adjoined it.

Rashbam comments that the girsa should be דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים, a public path. Artscroll in a footnote seems to take his comment as about the nature of derech harabbim, that it is not a true reshut harabbim though it has the right dimensions.

אמת המים מהו - נראה בעיני דגרסינן דרך הרבים מהו כגון שיש כאן שביל של ט"ז אמה שהולכין ממנו לשדות אבל רה"ר ממש איכא למימר דאין לך הפסק גדול מזה וכולהו באם תמצא לומר דאינו מפסיק מפרשינן להו:

We can fully understand his comment by seeing that on Hachi Garsinan, the universal girsa in the manuscripts is reshut harabbim, rather than derech harabbim. If it were really a “reshut harabbim”, it would unquestionably form an interposition, so Rav Ashi wouldn’t ask this.

The three printings have derech:

But manuscripts have reshut:

(Munich 95 had reshu’ in abbreviation)

We could propose that the word is reshut but the meaning is still derech. Maybe. Anyway, I would guess that the printings were either directly influenced by Rashbam’s emendation or were based on a manuscript that make this emendation.

Some of the lists of questions vary from one manuscript to another — e.g. amat hamayim doesn’t appear in Hamburg. But probably all should be there.

---

We have seen this set of dilemmas from Rav Ashi before, at the top of Bava Batra 83b. The topic was three trees sold, making up an orchard. Would certain land features create an interposition between them, so they would not be reckoned an orchard (and the land between the trees wouldn’t transfer to the buyer)?

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: בּוֹר, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? אַמַּת הַמַּיִם, מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק? רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַהוּ? רִיכְבָּא דְּדִיקְלֵי מַהוּ? תֵּיקוּ.

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: In the case of a pit situated between the trees, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that it divides between the trees, and therefore the owner of the trees does not acquire the ground? Similarly, in the case of a stream of water, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that it divides between the trees? With regard to the public thoroughfare that divides between trees, what is the halakha? Finally, in the case of a line of palm trees, what is the halakha? No answer is found for these problems, and the Gemara states that the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

It is the self-same list, and it also ends in a teiku.

There, even the printings have reshut harabbim, not derech harabbim.

And the manuscripts as well (Hamburg has an interesting לא ידעינן before the teiku):

Vatican 115b is interesting, in that the clause about the reshut harabbim being an interposition is a marginal insertion.

Tosafot there say that we aren’t dealing with something 16 amot wide, even though that is what it usually is.

רשות הרבים מהו שתפסיק. לאו ברוחב ט"ז איירי אע"פ שסתמו כך:

That makes a lot of sense, given that there are competing traditions within Shmuel, whether the gap between trees must be between 4 and 8 cubits, or 8 and 16 cubits. It would seem rather strange for Rav Ashi to then ask about such a gap.

Rashbam there has no emendation for reshut harabbim. Thus:

בעי רב אשי - אם תימצי לומר דהנך אין מפסיקין משום דליכא שום הפסק בינתים אבל אם יש בור של מים מכונסים בין ג' אילנות מהו שתפסיק ואת"ל דאינו מפסיק דהא לא מיתחזו המים מבראי אבל אמת המים מהו ואת"ל דלא מפסיק רשות הרבים כגון מד' אמות עד ט"ז ולא ט"ז בכלל מהו שתפסיק:

My reaction to this is that one may be a ha’avara of the other — that Rav Ashi asked this once, and it was reported twice as being a valid question. Alternatively, Rav Ashi is consistently bothered by the same questions, so given similar input, we can expect similar questions.

I discussed this idea in the following Scribal Error post:

However, maybe Rav Ashi asked some inquiries in one place and some in the other. If so, maybe omitting reshut harabbim entirely, as one manuscript originally had, makes sense. But then, once we had the list of inquiries, scribes supplemented each list from the other.