This Mort report is very exciting for me for in it I get to share with you what I am learning with Aron Kamin. It is only a small section of a larger project, but I still think you will enjoy it. At times it may prove difficult to understand, but I urge to stick with me through the end. I use a number of Hebrew and Yiddish words and have provided a mini glossary at the end for those who need it.

This afternoon, like every Sunday, Monday, and Wednesday, Aron Kamin and I were working on our (second) chaburah. The particular sugya we are doing is not key to my tale, but for those diehard fans out there it is about a guy who benefits and a guy who does not lose [Baba Kamma 20b]. We happened to be working on a Tosfos in another tractate [Baba Basra 12b] that is related to what the crux of the sugya.

We are involved with two cases. The first case features two sons Rueben and Shimon. Rueben is the firstborn and that title brings along with it certain perks. One of these is that he gets a double inheritance portion (i.e. the total inheritance is split into THREE parts instead of two, with Rueben getting two portions and Shimon getting one). Rabbah holds that (assuming all three fields are of equal value) in this case Rueben can request to have his two fields located next to one another and that Shimon cannot say that he wants his field to be sandwiched between Rueben’s. Rabbah says that this ruling is based on a pasuk in the Torah.

The second case also features Rueben and Shimon, but this time they are just two plain brothers, neither one being the firstborn. Because neither one is a firstborn, when their inheritance falls to them, they will each get an equal portion (i.e. they split the total inheritance in two equal parts). It so happens that Rueben personally owns a neighboring field next to one of the inheritance fields. In this case, Rabbah holds that (again assuming both inheritance fields are of equal value) Rueben can request to have his field next to the one he already owns and that Shimon cannot say that he wants the field next to Rueben’s, thereby separating Rueben’s personal and inheritance fields. Rabbah bases this ruling on a concept called midas Sodom.

Midas Sodom

-

the Jewish court forces you not to behave wickedly by interposing your wishes when you are losing nothing and the other individual involved is gaining. The people of Sodom (this famous city was located near the Dead Sea, and along with Gomorrah was utterly destroyed by Hashem) were infamous for this reprehensible attribute.

This case of the two brothers is a perfect example. The two fields are of equal worth, so Shimon loses nothing by getting one or the other. Rueben will benefit by having his two fields next to one another. For Shimon to demand the field next to Rueben’s personal one would be exhibiting midas Sodom. The courts do not allow this and that is why Rabbah says that Rueben can have the field next to his.

Are you still with me? Good. If you are sharp, you probably figured out the question the Tosfos poses. He asks, why must Rabbah say that his ruling in the first case is based on a pasuk from the Torah? All three fields are of equal value. Therefore, regardless of which field Shimon gets, he loses nothing. On the other hand, Rueben clearly will benefit by having the two fields next to one another. So is it not midas Sodom for Shimon to insist that he get the middle field? Is this not a good reason why Rabbah should rule that Rueben gets two fields next to one another?

Tosfos answers that there is a difference between the two cases. Therefore, in the second case Rabbah could use the concept of midas Sodom, but in the first case that concept would not applying, forcing Rabbah to make his ruling based on a pasuk.

Here is the expanded explanation (bear with me here). In the first case, the law states that the firstborn does get a double portion of the inheritance. However, it is NOT viewed as Rueben getting one double-size portion and Shimon getting one regular size portion. Rather, it is viewed as THREE SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS each getting an equal size portion. It so happens that Rueben is two of those individuals, but in terms of halacha it is considered three separate portions.

Based on this we now view the first case in a different light. Before we thought the inheritance was falling to two sons. Rueben wanted his two fields to be next to one another for the added convenience of maintaining his crops. You can just imagine how burdensome it would be for Rueben to airlift his John Deere 70A tractor (not to mention all the accessories needed for working a field) to his other field if Shimon had the middle field. If this were the case, then of course Rabbah would say that Shimon could not insist on having the middle field because that would be midas Sodom and there would be no need for the pasuk.

But it turns out that the first case is not working like that. Rueben may want his two fields next to one another for the added convenience, but we look at it as if Rueben has a multiple personality disorder. Really there is Rueben A and Rueben B. It so happens that these two fellows want to work together. So for them it would be nice to have their fields next to one another. However, their claim is basically that of two brothers out of three who want their fields together to join in partnership. In that case, we definitely do not force the third brother to take a particular field. This is the end of Tosfos’ answer.

This answer perplexed me and Aron, for why cannot the two brothers impose their will to have the fields together? It benefits the two brothers and the third brother does not lose, so it is midas Sodom for the third brother to insist on the middle field?

In search for an answer, it occurred to us that we had taken something for granted. We had assumed that having two fields next to one another, thereby forming one big field, has a higher monetary worth than having the two fields separate. But something about that struck me as odd, so I dashed out of the bais medrish, flung myself into the nearest phone booth, and changed into my Superman outfit. The call was to Milwaukee, where I posed my concern to my father. He, being experienced in the field of real estate and farm management, informed me of the following. If you were assessing the per acre value of land, then it would not matter if two fields are next to one another. You are looking down on a map, and you assess that this particular area is worth X dollars and this particular area is worth Y dollars, REGARDLESS of who owns them. On the other hand, the market value of the land, the value that you would get when selling the land IS affected by the proximity of a neighboring field. Why? Because every time Mort the farmer makes a turn in his tractor at the end of his field, he is losing valuable crop space. By having two fields right next to one another, I can drive straight across them, saving me the turns I would make along the middle border. That saved space will now hold several rows of whatever crop I am growing (hand-size lima beans). So the benefit you get by having your fields next to each other depends upon which value you want to look at - land value or sale value.

This difference is key to Tosfos’ answer and our understanding of the sugya in general. For if you try to say that the benefit you get from having your fields together is based on land value, then in the first case Rueben’s claim to have his two fields next to each other has no basis. Where is the benefit he gets in that arrangement? Sure it is more convenient in terms of crop maintenance, but we are looking at benefit as land value. It is not midas Sodom for Shimon to ask for the middle field. So it makes sense that Rabbah would need a pasuk to say that Shimon could not have the middle field. And worse, in the second case the concept of midas Sodom will also not apply, for there is no benefit to Rueben by having his inheritance field next to his personal field. The land value does not increase at all. Rabbah really does not make sense here because he says there IS the concept of midas Sodom in the second case.

It must be that BENEFIT IS DEFINED AS MARKET VALUE. Saying this now makes everything honky doory. In the first case we assumed that Rueben is getting a double portion. If so, the market value of having the two fields together would be greater than if they were apart. He will clearly benefit and Shimon loses nothing. Then Tosfos can ask his question why Rabbah needed a pasuk here and could not use the concept of midas Sodom. Tosfos’ answer is that we look at Rueben through a pair of psychologist glasses. Rueben A may want to have his field next to Rueben B, but they are separate people. We view them as individuals. As such, the market value is not higher and there is no clear benefit to Rueben. Therefore Rabbah needed the pasuk from the Torah. The second case does feature a benefit to Rueben in that the market value of the inheritance field will be greater by being next to his personal field. Rueben is benefiting and Shimon is not losing. In that case Rabbah will use the concept of midas Sodom.

The whole point of all of this was that one paragraph about me calling my father for some information. I consult with my father on many subjects, but I never thought that I would ask for his expert professional opinion in a learning setting. I mean, where does intraoperative neuromontioring and real estate management fit into the Talmud? That question was answered today and gave me reason to pause. Chazal say that (the knowledge of) the entire world can be found in the Torah. I believed this and have seen it in my many studies, both Judaic and secular, but I did not think the idea was rock solid. Until today, that is.

One more thing. I want to thank my father for taking the time out of his busy schedule to answer my question.

Mordechai Cohen
17 February 2000

Send comments to: Mordechai Cohen