Revelatory Action, for Rabbi Yossi

This past Shabbos, Bava Batra 4b, there was this Mishnah:

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּקִּיף אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹתָיו, וְגָדַר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה וְאֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית – אֵין מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם עָמַד וְגָדַר אֶת הָרְבִיעִית – מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל.

MISHNA: With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person’s field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.

Is Rabbi Yossi really arguing with the Tanna Kamma? After all, he speaks about a different case. It would seem that, at the least, he would concur regarding someone building three walls, and there were no further action, that the encompassed party need not pay. Similarly, perhaps the Tanna would agree with Rabbi Yossi, and he is merely clarifying. But say that they would argue on that point.

Another simply understanding of the Mishnah is that the one who “arose and build” would be the encompassed party, not the encompasser. The idea here is that by arising and acting, he tips his hand, reveals his thoughts, that he is pleased with being fenced in. And I think also that the amad of עָמַד וְגָדַר lends itself to this interpretation, more so than the word gadar by itself.

Indeed, if we simply look to the next Mishnah, we see the same idea of revelatory action. Thus, on Bava Batra 5a,

מַתְנִי׳ כּוֹתֶל חָצֵר שֶׁנָּפַל – מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ לִבְנוֹתוֹ עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁנָּתַן, עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן.

MISHNA: In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him up to a height of four cubits. If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his part.

מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וּלְמַעְלָן – אֵין מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ. סָמַךְ לוֹ כּוֹתֶל אַחֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן עָלָיו אֶת הַתִּקְרָה – מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן, עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁנָּתַן.

The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the wall higher than four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that had been built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. Since he has demonstrated his desire to make use of what his neighbor built, he must participate in the cost of its construction. If the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.

The reluctant neighbor building a proximate wall is revelatory, that he is pleased with the prior wall-building. This context should shed light on the previous Mishnah.

If only. We have the following statement at the start of the gemara, that troubles me greatly. Namely:

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: אִם עָמַד וְגָדַר אֶת הָרְבִיעִית – מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל. לָא שְׁנָא עָמַד נִיקָּף, לָא שְׁנָא עָמַד מַקִּיף.

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who says that if he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions. The Gemara comments: It is no different if it was the owner of the surrounded field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side, and it is no different if it was the owner of the surrounding field who arose and built a partition on the fourth side. The halakha is the same in both cases.

So, not only do we rule like Rabbi Yossi, but this is so even if the actor building the fourth wall is the encompasser! This means that Rabbi Yossi is not motivated by revelatory action. Rather, full encompassment is just so valuable that the other party must pay for it.

Does the Mishnah support this read? We know the printed Mishnah in our gemara. So too the Venice and Pisaro printings, they have the (unnknown) person be amad vegadar, which I personally think suggests it is the encompassed party.

Looking at manuscripts, here are some variants:

Florence 8-9 omits amad, perhaps helping with the idea that it is either party building the fourth wall.

Hamburg 165 has amad vegadar, like the printings.

Munich 95 has amad vegadar, but actually adds the actor explicitly, nikaf, the encompassed party, as I suggested!

Paris 1347 also has amad vegadar like the printings.

Another three:

Escorial has amad vegadar like the printings.

Vatican 115b is like Munich 95, amad nikaf vegadar.

So too the CUL fragment, amad nikaf. Presumably it continues with vegadar.

OK, so how can these manuscripts work with the gemara, which explicitly contradicts it?

Here we find something astonishing. In many texts, the halacha like Rabbi Yossi is either entirely omitted, or else is missing the Stammaic clarification that is does not matter which party did it. An exercise for the reader — match these Talmudic texts with the Mishnaic texts in each manuscript or printing, and see if / how it makes sense. Thus:

We know the Vilna text. But the Venice and Pisaro text entirely omit the amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel bit!

Florence 8-9, Hamburg 165, and Munich 95 also all omit it entirely.

So too Paris 1337, omits it entirely.

CUL omits it entirely.

Escorial and Vatican 115b do have the statement that Rav Yehuda cites Shmuel that we rule like Rabbi Yossi. But it omit the part that this is even if the actor is the encompasser.

OK, maybe you’ve matched these Mishnayot variants and Talmudic variants. I’ll just point out, amad vegadar in the earlier printings are totally consistent with the absence of any (or the Vilna’s) movement away from revelatory action, towards total encompassment. And so too, explicit nikaf as actor works well with a Shmuel statement that we rule like Rabbi Yossi, so long as we omit the Stammaic statement. I don’t know where this Stamma came from - maybe it really is e.g. Savoraic, or maybe it is some commentary based on later ideas coming up in the ensuing gemara.