The Story of the Riverfront Wood (Part I)

Introduction

 

As in the previous shiurim, in this shiur we will deal with a narrative of a halakhic character. In the framework of the genre of “stories of the sages,” this example may be less familiar. However, as we will see, such tales are not merely the description of legal cases, but rather narratives that broaden the canvas to a certain extent.

 

In the ninth chapter of Bava Metzia (107b), the Babylonian Talmud cites a narrative addressing cases in which trees on one’s property are impeding the passage of the public in one way or another. In our case, this is a wooded area of riverfront property. Naturally, such instances would be rare in the arid Land of Israel, but in Babylonia (i.e. Mesopotamia), in which rivers are abundant, such occurrences were common. Thus, the setting of this story is in Babylonia.

 

In addition, this story demonstrates two more general principles:

Before we consider the story itself, let us consider the context in the mishna and the sugya.

 

 

The mishna teaches:

 

 

Interestingly, if we look at Mishnaic manuscripts (e.g. Kaufmann), we discover the opposite:

 

 

Indeed, the contrast is expressed in the gemara (107a), which is aware of the contradiction between the two Mishnaic traditions, as expressed in a debate between R. Yehuda and Ravin:

 

 

In other words, R. Yehuda explains that there is difference between the Babylonian tradition of this mishna and that of the Land of Israel. Indeed, this is expressed precisely by the various manuscripts. Many of the manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud have a version of the mishna that differs from the manuscripts of Mishna alone (such as the Kaufmann manuscript mentioned above). It is a matter of consensus that the Mishnaic manuscripts reflect a tradition more in keeping with that of the Land of Israel, which deviates somewhat from the Babylonian version.

 

The gemara goes on to cite three statement of R. Yehuda to Ravin, along with debates of varying length inspired by each of these statements:

 

 

In the next stage of the sugya (107b), two additional statements of R. Yehuda are mentioned, this time to R. Ada the surveyor[1] concerning the importance of precision in measurement. These statements seem to be tied to the sugya solely by dint of the authority who voices them, R. Yehuda.[2] The second statement addresses the measurement of distance kept between fields and the stream that passes between them, as well as the measurement of distance kept between fields or private wooded areas and the river. In the final case, R. Yehuda instructs the assayer to measure the distance generously, not exactly, so that the result will be a bit more than the standard four cubits.

 

 

 

In this context, R. Ammi’s declaration is cited: “Cut down [all vegetation] in the shoulder-breadth of bargemen on both sides of the river.”[3] The bargemen would pull the boats along by rope, and they needed enough space on the riverbank to move freely as they leaned away from the water and pulled the barges.

 

After the proclamation, we find the case of R. Natan bar Hoshaya, who errs and cuts down sixteen cubits of vegetation on the riverbank, even though less would have been sufficient. After this case, the story of Rabba bar R. Huna’s wood is cited.

 

 

A.

 

 

The aggada before us consists of a narrative about Babylonian Amora’im containing two parts. In the middle, the Gemara interrupts, as it were, to offer commentary, creating a tripartite aggada.

 

In order to analyze this aggada, we will address the Amoraic narrative on its own merits, as well as the whole of this section, as it exists in its final state before us in the sugya.

 

In the Amoraic narrative, Rabba bar R. Huna is asked to cut down the growth of a wooded area belong to him on the riverbank, in accordance with the law propounded before the aggada. Rabba bar R. Huna demurs, declaring that he will do so only once his neighbors upriver and downriver have cut down the trees on their property.

 

In the second stage, Rabba bar R. Nachman floats down the river and is furious at Rabba bar R. Huna for not trimming his wood, so he gives the order personally to chop down the trees and clear the brush. In his wrath upon Rabba bar R. Huna, he quotes a verse from the book of Ezra referring to leaders who fail as role models, neglecting their legal responsibilities. Rabba bar R. Huna takes umbrage at the aggressive landscaping, and he pronounces a curse that is phrased to invoke and incur the practical ramifications of logging: “Whoever cut it down, may his branches be cut down.” Rabba bar R. Nachman’s family tree is to be savaged the way Rabba bar R. Huna’s literal tree has been chopped down. This is measure for measure, midda ke-negged midda. Indeed, the aggada concludes with the observation that the curse comes true; throughout Rabba bar R. Huna’s lifetime, Rabba bar R. Nachman does not merit to see offspring.

 

The Amoraic narrative does something of a hatchet job on Rabba bar R. Huna’s character, as his conduct is quite problematic for almost the entire length of the story. His refusal to clear his land is in direct opposition to the accepted ordinance cited before the story, and the criticism of Rabba bar R. Nachman is particularly caustic and lacerating. Rabba bar R. Nachman uses a biblical citation from the beginning of the ninth chapter of Ezra:

 

 

This quote makes Rabba bar R. Nachman’s claim particularly wounding. Ezra is confronted by the serious indictment of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel, among whom intermarriage has become a widespread phenomenon — particularly among the ruling class. This information leads Ezra to respond harshly,[4] demonstrating how seriously he takes this sin in general, and the complicity of the ruling class in particular. Many Talmudic stories attest to the fact that the Sages did not hesitate to criticize their fellow scholars — as long as those scholars were not their superiors — in cases in which their colleagues had seem to act improperly.  

 

However, the story concludes with a curse that Rabba bar R. Huna pronounces against Rabba bar R. Nachman, as well as the fulfillment of that curse. This conclusion seems to challenge, to a certain extent, the feeling that arises from the rest of the story, a feeling that absolute justice lies on the side of Rabba bar R. Nachman.

 

However, it may be that the curse and its fulfillment emerge from Rabba bar R. Nachman’s method of operation — chopping down Rabba bar R. Huna’s trees without speaking to him first — as opposed to his sharp claim against him. This also arises from the formulation of Rabba bar R. Huna’s response: “Whoever cut it down, may his branches be cut down!” Thus, the fact that the curse if fulfilled does not necessarily prove that Rabba bar R. Nachman’s claim has no validity. It is possible that he would have emerged unscathed if his criticism of Rabba bar R. Huna had been limited to verbalization, stopping before the instruction, “Cut it down, cut it down!” His action creates a change in reality; otherwise, he would not be cursed.

 

Another possibility is that a scholar’s curse has an inherent, independent power, regardless of its justification.[5] Indeed, this fact alone constitutes a certain positive reflection of Rabba bar R. Huna’s character; he is of sufficient stature to have his curse fulfilled. Thus, in terms of the literary effect on the reader, it appears that the end of the narrative, with the punishment of Rabba bar R. Nachman, challenges to a certain extent the one-sidedness of the decision among the sages, leaving the reader with a complex feeling, even though the matter is not conclusive.

 

As noted above, the Amoraic narrative is cited in the sugya as separated into two parts. In between, the gemara challenges Rabba bar R. Huna’s conduct based on the statement of Reish Lakish, which requires a person to serve as a role model and to first personally fulfill that which one demands from others. The response of the gemara is that in this case, Rabba bar R. Huna’s actions would have been irrelevant, since his neighbor was a Persian official;[6] it would have been quite unlikely that such a person would have agreed to cut down the vegetation on his property. Thus, even if Rabba bar R. Huna would have chopped down his wood, the bargemen would never have had true freedom of movement to ply their trade on the riverbank.

 

It is possible that the gemara’s interruption of the flow of the narrative emerges from an external concern – the desire to moderate criticism of one of the sages, out of a general viewpoint that, as much as possible, depictions of the sages as sinful or mistaken should be minimized. This is true despite the fact that, as noted above, in other places in the Babylonian Talmud we find sharp criticism of a given sage who erred or stumbled.

 

Another possibility is that the gemara’s question is not propelled by some ideological motivation. Rather, since Rabba bar R. Huna’s claim contradicts Reish Lakish’s dictum, “First adorn yourself, and then adorn others,” the gemara has no choice but to point out the incongruity of these two elements.

 

Alternatively, it is possible that the Talmudic redactors’ interruption is motivated by the conclusion of the story. As stated above, the fulfillment of the curse challenges, at least to a certain extent, the clear feeling that Rabba bar R. Nachman is in the right and Rabba bar R. Huna is in the wrong. In light of this, there is an increased need to find a reasonable explanation that justifies Rabba bar R. Huna’s conduct. If this is correct, the middle part of the aggada ties together the two other parts:[7] it provides an explanation for the conduct of Rabba bar R. Huna described in the first part, as well as further explaining Rabba bar R. Huna’s ire and the fulfillment of his curse in the third part.

 

Conversely, it appears that on another level, the middle part of the story also directs a certain degree of criticism at Rabba bar R. Huna. Considering the literary structure of the story reveals the term that recurs, “Cut it down, cut it down (Kotzu, kotzu)!” This creates wordplay with the verse cited by Reish Lakish, “Gather yourselves together, and gather [others] (Hitkosheshu va-koshu).” The similarity between the words emphasizes the claim made against Rabba bar R. Huna, who was supposed to be an example and cut down his trees on the riverbank, as the law requires.

 

Thus, the role of the second part in the aggada is complex. This in turn reflects the complexity that characterizes the aggada in its entirety in evaluating the actions of the characters within it.

 

In next week's shiur we will shed more light on the various parts of the story by examining parallels on which some of the building blocks of this story based on.

 

Translated by Yoseif Bloch