Pt1 Jerusalem’s Special Regulations: Urban Sanctity, Public Order, and Animal Restrictions (Bava Kamma 82b-83a)

This is the first part of a two-part series. The outline of the series is below.

Part 1

This sugya begins from the Mishnah’s prohibition against raising chickens in Jerusalem and expands it into a broader discussion of practices restricted in Jerusalem, in Eretz Yisrael, and in border zones. The material is organized around public order, ritual purity, urban regulation, political memory, and the symbolic dangers of certain animals. It moves from a legal list about Jerusalem’s special status, to a narrative explaining the ban on raising pigs, to a discussion of Greek language and Greek wisdom, and finally to the rules about raising dogs. The sugya’s main concern is communal regulation: what kinds of property, animals, structures, and cultural practices are compatible with a sacred or vulnerable public space.

The first unit cites a baraita listing ten rules unique to Jerusalem. These rules are presented as a compact catalogue: houses in Jerusalem do not become permanently transferred after sale; Jerusalem does not bring the heifer whose neck is broken; it cannot become an idolatrous city; its houses do not contract the impurity of house-plagues; balconies and projections may not be built there; garbage dumps may not be made there; kilns may not be built there; gardens and orchards may not be planted there, except for ancient rose gardens; chickens may not be raised there; and a corpse may not be left overnight there. The list combines several different types of law. Some depend on Jerusalem’s legal-theological status. Others concern urban hygiene, aesthetics, crowd safety, and purity maintenance. The baraita therefore treats Jerusalem both as a city with exceptional legal status and as a carefully regulated sacred environment.

The Talmud explains the first four rules through a single principle: Jerusalem was not apportioned to the Twelve Tribes. Since it is not tribal property, it does not fall under laws framed by the Torah as applying to inherited land, possessed cities, or private ancestral holdings. This explains why a sold house in Jerusalem does not become permanently transferred under the law of houses in walled cities. It also explains why Jerusalem does not bring the eglah arufah, since that rite applies when a corpse is found in land given to Israel as an inheritance. Similarly, Jerusalem cannot become an idolatrous city, because that law applies to “your cities.” Its houses cannot develop the impurity of house-tzara’at, because that law applies to “the land of your possession.”

The remaining rules are explained more practically. Balconies and projections are prohibited because they may spread corpse impurity as an “ohel” over those who pass beneath them, and because pilgrims may be injured by them in crowded streets. Garbage dumps are prohibited because they attract impure creeping creatures. Kilns are prohibited because of smoke. Gardens and orchards are prohibited because of odor, whether from weeds, decay, or fertilizer. Chickens are prohibited because they may bring impurity into contact with sacrificial foods, since they peck through refuse and carry impure matter. The rule against leaving a corpse overnight is identified simply as a received tradition, without an explicit reason. These explanations show how the sanctity of Jerusalem is expressed through ordinary municipal details: street design, waste disposal, air quality, smell, animal control, and corpse management.

The sugya then turns from chickens to pigs, based on the Mishnah’s rule that pigs may not be raised anywhere. A baraita gives the background through a narrative from the Hasmonean civil war (in 63 BCE). Hyrcanus and Aristobulus are presented as rival claimants, one inside besieged Jerusalem and one outside. Each day, those inside Jerusalem lower money in a basket, and those outside send up animals for the daily Temple offering. The arrangement allows the Temple service to continue even during the siege. Then an elder familiar with “Greek wisdom” tells the besiegers that as long as those inside continue the Temple service, they will not fall. The next day, instead of sending up lambs, the besiegers send up a pig. When it reaches the midpoint of the wall, it digs its hooves into the wall, and the land of Israel shakes over a vast area. At that moment, the sages curse anyone who raises pigs and anyone who teaches his son Greek wisdom.

The baraita also connects this period with another Mishnah, according to which the omer offering once had to be brought from the gardens of Tzerifin and the two loaves from the valley of Ein Sokher. The reason given is that the besiegers had destroyed the nearby produce.

The curse against teaching Greek wisdom leads to a clarification. The Talmud asks whether Greek wisdom is truly prohibited, since R. Yehuda HaNasi says that in Eretz Yisrael one should use either Hebrew or Greek rather than Syriac. R. Yosei similarly says that in Babylonia one should use either Hebrew or Persian rather than Aramaic. These statements assume that Greek, as a language, is legitimate and even preferable in certain contexts. The Talmud therefore distinguishes between the Greek language and Greek wisdom. Greek language is permitted; Greek wisdom is treated as a separate category. (The Talmud does not define Greek wisdom precisely, but it is clearly not identical with ordinary linguistic competence.)

The Talmud then raises a further difficulty from Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s report that in his father’s household, five hundred students studied Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom. Only two survived: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel himself and his father’s brother’s son in Asia Minor. This tradition suggests that Greek wisdom was not absolutely prohibited. The Talmud resolves the issue by distinguishing the house of Rabban Gamliel, which was close to the government. Because of their political role, they were permitted to study Greek wisdom. The sugya compares this to Avtolmos bar Reuven, who was permitted to wear a Roman-style haircut because of his government connections, even though such a haircut was otherwise considered “the ways of the Amorites.”

Part 2

The final major unit discusses dogs. The Mishnah states that a person may not raise a dog unless it is chained. A baraita qualifies this: in a town near the border, one may raise a dog, tying it by day and releasing it at night. The rule reflects a balance between danger and security. Dogs are treated as dangerous or disruptive animals in ordinary settlement, but useful in exposed frontier areas. Rav Naḥman applies this border-town logic to Babylonia, but the Talmud narrows the statement to Neharde’a, apparently because of its frontier position.

R. Eliezer the Great intensifies the rule by saying that one who raises dogs is like one who raises pigs. The Talmud explains that the practical effect is the curse: dog-raising, like pig-raising, can fall under a severe communal condemnation.

The sugya closes with an interpretation by R. Dostai from Biri and a supporting anecdote. R. Dostai expounds Numbers 10:36, “Return, YHWH, to the myriads of the thousands of Israel,” to teach that the Shekhina rests on Israel only when Israel reaches a minimum number, understood from the plural “myriads” and “thousands.” If Israel lacks one person, and a pregnant woman is present whose child would complete the number, and a dog barks at her and causes miscarriage, then the dog’s owner has caused the Shekhina to depart from Israel.

The anecdote gives the abstract teaching a concrete form. A pregnant woman enters a house to bake, a dog barks at her, and the owner reassures her that the dog’s teeth have been removed. She replies that his reassurance is useless, because the fetus has already “moved from its place” (i.e. she already miscarried).

Outline

Intro

The Passage

1. Baraita - Ten Jerusalem rules: no permanent house sale, no heifer rite, no idolatrous-city status, no house impurity, no balconies/projections, no dumps, no kilns, no gardens/orchards except ancient rose gardens, no chickens, no leaving a corpse overnight

2. Four Jerusalem rules follow because Jerusalem was not divided among tribes - Leviticus 25:30, 14:34; Deuteronomy 21:1, 13:13

3. No balconies because of impurity and pilgrim injury; no dumps because of impure creatures; no kilns because of smoke; no gardens because of odor; no chickens because of sacrificial purity; no corpse overnight by tradition

4. Baraita - The ban on raising pigs is linked to the Hasmonean civil war, when a pig was sent instead of daily-offering animals and caused national shock

5. Leadership (Pharisees?) at that time - Cursed one who raises pigs and one who teaches his son Greek wisdom

6. R’ Yehuda HaNasi - In Eretz Yisrael one should use Hebrew or Greek rather than Syriac

7. R’ Yosei - In Babylonia one should use Hebrew or Persian rather than Aramaic

8. Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel citing Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - Lamentations 3:51

   1. Rabban Gamliel’s household had many who studied Torah and many who studied Greek wisdom

   2. Of those numerous people, only two survived (Roman persecutions) - himself (=Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel) and his cousin

9. Greek wisdom was permitted for Rabban Gamliel’s household because they were close to the government, like Avtolmos bar Reuven’s permitted Roman haircut

Part 2

1. Baraita - One may not raise a dog unless chained; in border towns it may be tied by day and released at night

2. R’ Eliezer the Great - Raising dogs is like raising pigs

3. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi citing Rav Naḥman - Babylonia is like a border city for dog-raising purposes

4. R’ Dostai from Biri - A dog that frightens a pregnant woman and causes miscarriage diminishes Israel’s number and thereby causes the Shekhina to depart - Numbers 10:36

5. Anecdote - A barking dog frightens a pregnant woman; the owner’s reassurance is useless because she already miscarried

Appendix 1 - Sounding the alarm for dangerous insect infestations (Bava Kamma 80b)

1. R’ Aḥa bar Pappa citing R’ Abba bar Pappa citing R’ Adda bar Pappa / alternate chains - Three teachings: alarm may be sounded on Shabbat for dangerous sores; a locked door will not open quickly; a house purchase in Eretz Yisrael may be documented even on Shabbat

2. Baraita - For public calamities such as sores, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes, snakes, and scorpions, one cries out on Shabbat but does not sound the alarm

3. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - Egyptian boils were moist outside and dry inside; dry sores are more dangerous - Exodus 9:10

Appendix 2 - The land settled by the Tribes when they entered Eretz Yisrael (Bava Kamma 81b)

1. Baraita - The Sea of Tiberias belonged to Naphtali, including a southern strip for nets - Deuteronomy 33:23

2. R’ Shimon ben Elazar - Detached mountain goods belonged to all tribes; attached goods belonged to the tribe receiving that land

   1. Every tribe had mountain, lowland, Negev, and valley territory

   2. Prooftext - Deuteronomy 1:7

Appendix 3 - The health benefits of eating garlic (Bava Kamma 82a)

1. Eating garlic Friday supports marital sex

2. R’ Yehuda / Rav Naḥman / Rav Kahana / R’ Yoḥanan - marital sex on Friday night is “fruit in its season” - Psalms 1:3

3. Baraita - benefits of garlic: satisfies, warms, brightens the face, increases semen, kills intestinal lice, causes love and reduced jealousy - list of 5/6 items

The Passage

Bava_Kamma.82b.4-83a.8

Baraita - Ten Jerusalem rules: no permanent house sale, no heifer rite, no idolatrous-city status, no house impurity, no balconies/projections, no dumps, no kilns, no gardens/orchards except ancient rose gardens, no chickens, no leaving a corpse overnight

עשרה דברים נאמרו בירושלים:

1. אין הבית חלוט בה;

2. ואינה מביאה עגלה ערופה;

3. ואינה נעשית עיר הנדחת;

4. ואינה מטמאה בנגעים;

5. ואין מוציאין בה זיזין וגזוזטראות;

6. ואין עושין בה אשפתות;

7. ואין עושין בה כבשונות;

8. ואין עושין בה גנות ופרדסות –

   1. חוץ מגנות וורדין שהיו מימות נביאים הראשונים;

9. ואין מגדלים בה תרנגולין;

10. ואין מלינין בה את המת.

§ The Mishnah teaches that one may not raise chickens in Jerusalem. The Talmud cites a baraita that contains a list of other halakhot that are unique to Jerusalem.

10 matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem:

1. A house situated in Jerusalem does not become irredeemable (חלוט) one year after its sale. Those who sell houses in other walled cities have the right to buy back their property for one year after the transaction. If they fail to do so, the house becomes the permanent possession of the buyer (see Leviticus 25:29–30). This halakha does not apply to houses in Jerusalem.

2. And its Elders do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken (עגלה ערופה) as required when a murder victim is found near a city and the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9);

3. and it cannot become an idolatrous city (עיר הנדחת - see Deuteronomy 13:13–19).

4. And a house in Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with the impurity of leprous sores;

5. and one may not build out projections (זיזין) or balconies [gezuztraot] from houses that are in it;

6. and one may not establish garbage dumps (אשפתות) in Jerusalem;

7. and one may not build kilns (כבשונות) in it;

8. and one may not plant gardens and orchards [pardesot] in it,

   1. except for the rose gardens that were already there from the times of the early prophets;

9. and one may not raise chickens in it;

10. and one may not leave a corpse overnight in Jerusalem.

Four Jerusalem rules follow because Jerusalem was not divided among tribes - Leviticus 25:30, 14:34; Deuteronomy 21:1, 13:13

1. אין הבית חלוט בה –

   1. דכתיב: ״וקם הבית אשר לו חומה לצמתת לקנה אתו לדרתיו״,

   2. וקסבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים.

2. ואינה מביאה עגלה ערופה –

   1. דכתיב: ״כי ימצא חלל באדמה אשר ה׳ אלהיך נותן לך לרשתה״,

   2. וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים.

3. ואינה נעשית עיר הנדחת –

   1. דכתיב: ״עריך״,

   2. וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים.

4. ואינה מטמאה בנגעים –

   1. דכתיב: ״ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחזתכם״,

   2. וירושלים לא נתחלקה לשבטים.

The Talmud discusses these 10 halakhot pertaining to Jerusalem, one by one:

1. A house situated in it does not become irredeemable one year after its sale.

   1. The reason is that it is written: “And if it is not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it, throughout his generations” (Leviticus 25:30).

   2. And the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any single one of the tribes of Israel; rather, it is considered common property. Since no one has ancestral ownership of any house in Jerusalem, its houses cannot be sold permanently.

2. And its inhabitants do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken.

   1. The reason is that it is written: “If one is found slain in the land that YHWH your God gives you to possess it” (Deuteronomy 21:1).

   2. And, again, the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any one of the tribes of Israel. Therefore, it is not included in the description: “The land that YHWH your God gives you to possess it.”

3. The baraita states: And it cannot become an idolatrous city.

   1. The reason is that it is written, in the introduction of the passage dealing with the halakha of an idolatrous city: “If you shall hear tell concerning one of your cities, which YHWH your God gives you to dwell there” (Deuteronomy 13:13).

   2. And the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any one of the tribes of Israel. It is therefore not included in the description “one of your cities, which YHWH your God gives you to dwell there.”

4. The baraita further teaches: And a house in Jerusalem does not become ritually impure with the impurity of leprous sores.

   1. The reason is that it is written: “And I put the plague of tzara’at in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34).

   2. And the tanna who taught this baraita maintains that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any one of the tribes of Israel. It is therefore not included in the description “a house of the land of your possession.”

No balconies because of impurity and pilgrim injury; no dumps because of impure creatures; no kilns because of smoke; no gardens because of odor; no chickens because of sacrificial purity; no corpse overnight by tradition

1. ואין מוציאין בה זיזין וגזוזטראות –

   1. מפני אהל הטומאה,

   2. ומשום דלא ליתזקו עולי רגלים.

2. ואין עושין בה אשפתות –

   1. משום שקצים.

3. ואין עושין בה כבשונות –

   1. משום קוטרא.

4. ואין עושין בה גנות ופרדסין –

   1. משום סירחא.

5. ואין מגדלין בה תרנגולין –

   1. משום קדשים.

6. ואין מלינין בה את המת –

   1. גמרא.

The Talmud discusses the next halakha:

1. And one may not build out projections or balconies from houses that are in Jerusalem.

   1. The Talmud provides two reasons for this prohibition. First, it is due to the danger of contracting ritual impurity by being in the same tent (אהל ) as a corpse, i.e., under the same roof, in which case the impurity spreads to all items under the roof. If even a small part of a corpse is under a balcony, everyone who passes under that balcony is rendered impure. Many people come to Jerusalem to sacrifice offerings, and they must maintain a state of ritual purity.

   2. The other reason is so that those great crowds of pilgrims (עולי רגלים) not be injured by colliding with the projections.

2. The next halakha pertaining to Jerusalem is: And one may not establish garbage dumps in it.

   1. The Talmud explains that the reason is due to the repugnant creatures (שקצים) that are attracted to such heaps and impart ritual impurity upon their death.

3. The baraita states: And one may not build kilns in Jerusalem.

   1. The reason is due to the unsightly smoke (קוטרא) produced by kilns. The rabbis sought to preserve the beauty of Jerusalem and the Temple.

4. The baraita teaches: And one may not plant gardens and orchards in it.

   1. This is due to the odor (סירחא) emitted by these places, either from discarded weeds or from fertilizer.

5. The next halakha on the list is: And one may not raise chickens in Jerusalem.

   1. The Talmud explains that this is due to the sacrificial meat (קדשים) that is consumed in Jerusalem. Since chickens peck in the garbage, they are likely to pick up items that impart ritual impurity and bring them into contact with the consecrated food, which may not be eaten in an impure state.

6. The Talmud discusses the last halakha: And one may not leave a corpse overnight in it.

   1. The Talmud notes that this prohibition is a tradition (גמרא); there is no known explanation for it.

Baraita - The ban on raising pigs is linked to the Hasmonean civil war, when a pig was sent instead of daily-offering animals and caused national shock

אין מגדלין חזירים בכל מקום.

תנו רבנן:

כשצרו בית חשמונאי זה על זה,

היה הורקנוס מבפנים

ואריסטובלוס מבחוץ.

ובכל יום היו משלשלים להם בקופה דינרין,

והיו מעלים להם תמידים.

§ The Mishnah teaches that one may not raise pigs anywhere.

A baraita states the background for this halakha:

When the members of the house of Hasmonean monarchy were at war (צרו) with each other,

Hyrcanus, one of the parties to this war, was inside the besieged Jerusalem,

while his brother Aristobulus, the other contender to the throne, was on the outside.

And every day the people inside would lower down (משלשלים) money (דינרין) in a box (קופה) from the Temple walls, to purchase sheep to sacrifice,

and those on other side would take the money and send up sheep to them over the wall for the daily offerings (תמידים).

היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית,

אמר להם:

כל זמן שעוסקין בעבודה –

אין נמסרים בידכם.

There was a certain elder there who was familiar with Greek wisdom,

and he said to those besieging Jerusalem:

As long as they occupy themselves with the Temple service —

they will not be delivered into your hands.

למחר שילשלו דינרין בקופה,

והעלו להם חזיר.

כיון שהגיע לחצי החומה,

נעץ צפרניו בחומה,

ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה.

The next day they lowered down money in a box as usual,

but this time they sent up to them a pig.

When the pig reached to the midpoint of the Temple wall

it stuck its hooves into the wall,

and Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of 400 parasangs by 400 parasangs.

Leadership (Pharisees?) at that time - Cursed one who raises pigs and one who teaches his son Greek wisdom

באותה שעה אמרו:

ארור האיש שיגדל חזירים,

וארור האדם שילמד את בנו חכמת יוונית.

At that time the rabbis said:

Cursed be the man who raises pigs,

and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom.

ועל אותה שעה שנינו:

מעשה שבא עומר מגנות הצריפין,

ושתי הלחם מבקעת עין סוכר.

And it was concerning that time of siege that we learned in a Mishnah:

There was an incident in which the barley for the omer offering came from the gardens of Tzerifin,

far from Jerusalem, and the wheat for the two loaves of Shavuot was brought from the valley of Ein Sokher.

Barley and wheat could not be brought from any nearer because the besiegers had destroyed all the produce around Jerusalem.

This concludes the baraita.

R’ Yehuda HaNasi - In Eretz Yisrael one should use Hebrew or Greek rather than Syriac

וחכמת יוונית מי אסירא?!

והתניא:

אמר רבי:

בארץ ישראל –

לשון סורסי למה?

• או לשון הקדש,

• או לשון יונית

The Talmud asks a question with regard to this baraita:

And is it really prohibited to study Greek wisdom?

But isn’t it taught in a baraita: R’ Yehuda HaNasi said:

In Eretz Yisrael,

why would one speak the Syriac [Sursi] language?

• One should speak either the sacred tongue, Hebrew,

• or the Greek language.

R’ Yosei - In Babylonia one should use Hebrew or Persian rather than Aramaic

ואמר רבי יוסי:

[ב]בבל –

לשון ארמי למה?

• או לשון הקדש,

• או לשון פרסי

And R’ Yosei said similarly:

In Babylonia,

why would one speak the Aramaic language?

One should speak either

• the sacred tongue (=Hebrew)

• or the Persian language.

At any rate, R’ Yehuda HaNasi’s statement indicates that there is nothing wrong with learning and speaking Greek.

אמרי:

לשון יוני לחוד,

חכמת יונית לחוד.

The rabbis say in response:

The Greek language is discrete,

and Greek wisdom is discrete.

In other words, these are two separate issues; only Greek wisdom is prohibited, not the Greek language.

Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel citing Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - Lamentations 3:51

וחכמת יונית מי אסירא?!

1. והאמר רב יהודה

2. אמר שמואל

3. משום רבן שמעון בן גמליאל:

״עיני עוללה לנפשי

מכל בנות עירי״

The Talmud further pursues this line of inquiry:

And is Greek wisdom itself actually prohibited?

1. But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that

2. Shmuel says

3. in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel:

It is written:

“My eye affected my soul,

because of all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51).

Rabban Gamliel’s household had many who studied Torah and many who studied Greek wisdom

אלף ילדים היו בבית אבא;

• חמש מאות מהם

  • למדו תורה,

• חמש מאות

  • למדו חכמת יונית;

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel applied this verse to a personal tragedy:

There were 1,000 children in the household of my father, Rabban Gamliel;

• 500 of them

  • studied the Torah,

• and 500 of them

  • studied Greek wisdom.

Of those numerous people, only two survived (Roman persecutions) - himself (=Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel) and his cousin

ולא נשתייר מהם אלא

• אני –

  • כאן,

• ובן אחי אבא –

  • בעסיא!

All of them were killed by the Romans;

and the only ones that remain of them are

• I (=Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel),

  • who is here in Eretz Yisrael,

• and the son of my father’s brother,

  • who is in Asia Minor [Asya].

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s statement indicates that it is permitted to study Greek wisdom.

Greek wisdom was permitted for Rabban Gamliel’s household because they were close to the government, like Avtolmos bar Reuven’s permitted Roman haircut

אמרי:

שאני בית רבן גמליאל,

שהיו קרובים למלכות.

The rabbis say in response:

The household of Rabban Gamliel is different,

as they held close ties with the Roman government.

Since knowledge of Greek wisdom was crucial for the members of this family, the rabbis exempted them from the general decree,

וכדתניא:

המספר קומי –

הרי זה מדרכי האמורי.

as it is taught in a baraita:

With regard to one who cuts his hair in the fashion of komi, a certain haircut favored by the Romans —

this is considered one of “the ways of the Amorites” (דרכי האמורי),

i.e., a non-Jew practice prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:3).

אבטולמוס בר ראובן התירו לו לספר קומי,

מפני שהוא קרוב למלכות.

של בית רבן גמליאל התירו להם לספר בחכמת יונית,

מפני שקרובים למלכות.

Despite this, the rabbis permitted Avtolmos bar Reuven to cut his hair in the fashion of komi,

because he had close ties with the Roman government.

Likewise, they permitted the members of the household of Rabban Gamliel to discuss matters of Greek wisdom,

because they had close ties with the Roman government.