Bava Batra 4: Herod's Evil, Bava ben Buta's Survival, a Field Surrounded by Fields

King Herod blinded Bava ben Buta with a crown made of porcupine hide.  Then he approached Bava ben Buta and attempted to learn Bava ben Buta's true beliefs and feelings about him.  Bava ben Buta was respectful and kind.  He affirmed that Herod was the rightful king regardless of whether or not Herod was formerly a slave.  Herod was pleased with these answers and realized that he had made a mistake in murdering all of the other sages.  

Herod wanted to rebuild the Temple but knew that Rome might not recognize him as king.  Bava ben Buta counselled Herod to send a messenger to Rome.  If the messenger took two years to travel there and back, the Temple would be rebuilt by the time the messenger returned with permission - or not.  

The rabbis describe the Temple as one of the most beautiful sights people had ever seen.  They describe the marble walls which Herod wished to cover in gold but were kept plain because he was convinced that they looked like waves.  The rabbis then discuss whether or not Bava ben Buta should have advised Herod to break the law in that way.  They compare this situation with similar situations. It would seem to me that with a king like Herod, Bava ben Buta was wise to advise Herod to do whatever Herod wished to do.  Herod would do what he wished anyway, and fewer people would die when Herod was kept happy.

The rabbis move back to their conversation about our last Mishna.  They consider some of the possible 'local customs', including fences of palm leaves, for example.  The rabbis note that it would seem that the assumed custom was only the claimant paying for the walls; the neighbour would not be obligated to pay.  The rabbis describe walls that were more like fences with parts protruding from the fence in one direction or another.  This was not permitted. They also note that the mark of one neighbour's border is sufficient.  No border mark was required from the other neighbour, for that would introduce potential conflict.

We learn a new Mishna which teaches that if a person's field is surrounded by another's field on three sides and that neighbour builds three walls around the person's field, that person is not obliged to contribute to the cost of the walls.  Rabbi Yosei suggests that if that person builds a forth partition of his own accord, he must pay for half the cost of each of the other fences.  Our notes teach us that if he pays for a less expensive fence, this person is obligated to pay only half of the cost of his own fence toward the cost of each of the other person's fences. 

The Gemara shows us that the rabbis disagree about this obligation.  Is it the same if the person with the inner field was the one to pay for the three fences?  If the price of the reeds (to build the flimsier fence) is noted and used to assess how much is owed to the neighbour with the surrounding fields, how does that price compare with that of a watchman?  The rabbis understand these fences to be a form of personal security.  If one does not have fences, one might have a security guard, so to speak.  And so those costs must be considered.