Rabbi Nechunia’s Prayer
‘… Even So, An Actual Incident Is Greater’
(Bava Basra 83a)
The Mishna (81a) states that if one buys three trees in his friend’s field, he acquires the land between (and near) the trees. The reason is that the sale is considered to be for a “tree field,” not just a sale of three solitary trees.
The Gemara (82b) establishes that there is both a minimum and a maximum distance between the trees (that are sold) in order for this halacha to apply. If there is too little space between the trees, the trees do not constitute a “tree field” (because one of the trees will eventually have to be uprooted to allow the other trees to thrive). On the other hand, if there is too much space between the trees, they do not constitute a “tree field” due to the great distance between them.
The Gemara cites a dispute in this matter between two sages in the name of Shmuel. Rav Yosef in the name of Rav Yehuda ruled that the minimum/maximum distance between the trees is 4-8 amos. Rav Nachman said that Shmuel’s minimum/maximum distance is actually 8-16 amos.
Guidance From Kilayim
In seeking to resolve this dispute, the Gemara compares this law to the law of kerem (vineyards) as regards kilayim (admixtures), which includes the prohibition of planting wheat or other crops in a vineyard.
Rav Meir and Rav Shimon maintain that if the rows of the vineyard are spaced eight amos apart (or more), they do not constitute a vineyard and one may plant therein other seeds (provided they are planted a minimum of one amah distance from the vines).
Rav Yehuda disagrees as he relates an incident that once occurred in the town of Tzalmon in which the Sages ruled that seeds (of other crops) may not be planted in the vicinity of vines unless the rows of vines are spaced 16 amos apart.
Thus Abaya ruled like Rav Nachman in our case of a “tree field” as well that it needs 16 amos.
The Practical
The Gemara explains that the reason why we would rule like Rav Yehuda in his dispute with Rav Meir and Rav Shimon is that his ruling is based on an actual incident. And a ruling that is based on an actual incident always has greater validity.
Indeed, the Maharil (Siman 72 – cited in She’arim Metzuyanim b’Halacha) explains that a halachic authority in ruling on a query should always lend more weight to responsa to actual, practical halachic queries as opposed to those that are strictly academic and abstract.
Siyata D’Shmaya
The Noda Bi Yehuda (cited by Sefer Mofes Ha’Dor – a biography of Rav Yechezkel Landau – at the end of Chapter 3), explains the reason as follows: When a halachic authority is presented with a practical query, he is endowed with a measure of siyata d’Shmaya – divine assistance which enables him to reach the proper conclusion. However, one who merely discusses a halachic question academically is not endowed with this divine inspiration. We actually see this admonition from the Mishna (Berachos 28b): “Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKanah would offer a brief prayer when he entered the study hall and when he left. The Sages said to him: ‘What is the nature of this prayer?’ He told them: ‘Upon my entrance, I pray that no mishaps should occur because of me; and upon my departure, I offer thanksgiving for my portion.’”
Avoid Mishaps
Be’er Mayim Chayyim (Sefer Eretz HaChayyim – Berachos 28b) instructs a rabbi confronted with a halachic query to seek divine assistance – to pray to G-d that he arrive at the proper decision and additionally spare him from any mishap on account of his ruling.
He cites an incident of a rabbi who was asked to examine a piece of chicken to ascertain whether the chicken was treifah (due to the appearance of a fatal wound). Based on what he saw, the rabbi did not see any reason to declare the chicken unfit. However, intuitively, he asked to see the rest of the chicken. Upon examination, he did find it to be a treifah (a fatal wound) from what he saw in that other part.
Indeed he merited divine assistance and no mishap occurred via his ruling.
