2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

Bava Batra 162

Today’s daf continues to discuss how a document should be laid out, how it should end and where it should be signed. All this to avoid fraud and forgeries. Which had me thinking about Mark Landis.

Mark Landis is an American artist best known as “the most prolific and successful art forger In United States history.” For decades, Mark Landis donated art to museums and galleries across the US. He was largely assumed to be a wealthy art collector. However, each “masterpiece” was actually his own work. The most ironic thing? He was never prosecuted! Through it all, Landis had never taken payment so hadn’t broken any law.

For a few hundred dollars, you too can have a piece of Mark Landis art on your wall. You simply upload a photo and say what materials you prefer and he makes you a Landis original.

I have a painting of me and my husband from our wedding. 🙂

Bava Batra 161

Prince wasn’t the first person to become a symbol. On today’s daf, we learn that many rabbis signed their names with symbols.

But perhaps the witness made this name into a mere distinguishing mark that he uses as his signature, as it is known that Rav used to draw a fish as his signature mark, rather than signing his name, and Rabbi Ḥanina used to draw a palm branch as his signature mark, and Rav Ḥisda used to sign just the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya used to sign just the letter ayin, and Rava bar Rav Huna used to sign his name by drawing a ship’s mast [makhota].

If you’re like me, you are now wondering why?! Enter the later rabbis who try to explain this phenomenon.

According to the sages at dafyomi.co.il, “The RASHBAM (DH Rav Tziyer) writes that anyone who attempts to give any deep reason for why Rav and Rebbi Chanina drew pictures of a fish and a date palm is mistaken. The Rashbam apparently understands that Rav drew a picture of a fish because he was accustomed to eating fish, and Rebbi Chanina drew a picture of a date palm because he used to eat dates.

“The MAHARSHAL explains that the Rashbam does not mean that the Amora’im used as their signatures merely what they liked to eat. Rather, Rav identified himself with his special stringency to obtain large fish in honor of Shabbat, and Rebbi Chanina identified himself with his special stringency to have fine dates for Shabbat. The Maharshal apparently means that these Amora’im used as a symbol for their signatures the unique Mitzvah which they were especially careful to observe.

However, “RAV YAKOV EMDEN in Gitin (36a) proposes a deeper reason for the pictures and letters used by the Amora’im as their signatures. He explains that Rav sketched a fish, because a fish represents a good omen. The Gemara earlier (118b) teaches that an evil eye has no power over a fish. Rebbi Chanina sketched a date palm, based on the verse, “Tzadik ka’Tamar Yifrach” — “The Righteous will blossom like a date palm” (Tehilim 92:13). Moreover, because Rebbi Chanina was in a position of rulership, he used the symbol of a date palm, the branches of which are fit to be used to hit (see Sukah 45a). This alludes to his awareness of his responsibility to lead the people in the proper path of serving God. Rav Chisda used the letter “Samech” to indicate that one may rely (“Somech”) on his signature. Rebbi Hoshiya used the letter “Ayin” to symbolize the word “Ayin” — “investigate”; Rebbi Hoshiya affixed his signature to a document only after he carefully investigated that the details in the document were accurate. (Y. Montrose)”

So cool! Why did Prince choose his symbol? According to Variety magazine, his motivation for doing so was never clearly stated, although many assumed it was a ploy to get out of his contract with his longtime label, Warner Bros. Records. He announced the decision in a statement that read, “It is an unpronounceable symbol whose meaning has not been identified. It’s all about thinking in new ways, tuning in 2 a new free-quency.”

I so want to sign this post with a symbol. . . but what? My favorite food (crunchy peanut butter)? A symbol of a good omen (but a plus sign looks like a cross)? Something no one can pronounce (like a guttural r)?

Bava Batra 160 (capricious Priests)

In today’s world, we use docu-sign which zips us around the pages of documents telling us where to sing, where to initial, and what we can skip shoudl we choose. But, in the ancient world – where did we sign documents to make them valid? That’s the topic of today’s daf. The gem comes when it discusses signing “tied” documents and introduces us to come hot-tempered priests.

The Gemara explains: Rather, the entire institution of the tied document is rabbinic in origin. . . The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages instituted the tied document? The Gemara explains: There was a place where there were many priests, and they were very quick tempered, and they would seek to divorce their wives impetuously. The halakha is that a priest may not marry a divorcée, even his own ex-wife. These priests, who acted impetuously, often regretted having divorced their wives. And therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the bill of divorce for these people should be of the tied format, which is a long, drawn-out process, hoping that meanwhile, their composure would be regained and they would reconsider their decision to divorce.

So, why do we have tied documents? The rabbis created them! why? There were hot tempered priests who kept divorcing their wives in the heat of the moment. Their solution? Make the divorce document “tied” and it will take a long time; if they take enough time, maybe the priest who wants the divorce will change his mind.

It reminds me of the rabbi who had an angry jacket. He lost his temper all the time so he decided that he would only yell at people in his angry jacket. So, if he got upset, he had to walk home, get the jacket, change, and walk back. This gave him enough time to calm down. To put space between the catalyst and the reaction to avoid an explosion.

Deep breaths, counting, taking a time out, drinking a glass or water, putting on an angry jacket, writing a letter, and now, signing a tied document – all things we need to give us some time to calm down.

Don’t feel bad if you need a minute – even priests do.

Bava Batra 159

My mom loved watching Law and Order and other court shows when I was growing up. It was watching these shows that I learned about “spousal privilege” and the idea that a spouse cannot be forced to testify against their partner.

The daf says that this is true of all close family members. No matter if they are testifying for or against, if it’s a spouse, child, parent, sibling or even in-law.

The Gemara rejects this: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is the King’s edict, i.e., a divine decree, that the testimony of a son-in-law is not deemed credible, and yet the testimony of others is deemed credible, and the reason he is disqualified is not that he is suspected of lying. This must be so, as if you do not say so, why are Moses and Aaron disqualified from bearing witness for their father-in-law? Could this be because their testimony is not deemed credible? Rather, it is the King’s edict that even Moses and Aaron shall not bear witness for their relatives. Here too, it is the King’s edict that a son-in-law shall not testify as to the validity of his handwriting for his father-in-law.

Love this! We don’t trust you, even if it’s Moses we are talking about. We see this clearly in the Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 33:10 (the code of law):

“This, that we disqualify the testimony of relatives, is not because we assume they like each other as we see that they are disqualified to testify whether for or against the relative. Even Moshe and Aharon are disqualified from testifying for one another. Rather, it is simply a rule from the Torah.”

Funny enough, Florida does not really hold a lot of space for spousal privilege. It has limited scope and applies only “to confidential communications that occurred during the marriage. It does not prevent a spouse from testifying about your actions or their observations.” The spouse can also waive the right and testify. They can also be forced to testify if the matter in question has to do with crimes against each other or certain other felonies. So, the TV shows either lied to me or Florida doesn’t really uphold this standard like they did on Law and Order.

Bava Batra 158

The daf is discussing what happens when two people, one of whom would inherit from the other, die at the same time – who inherits now? Today’s case is particularly interesting as a husband and wife die at the same time. But it appears that she is the one in the relationship who has money, not the man. It also appears they don’t have a child that descends from both of them. So, who inherits? Her heirs or his?

MISHNA: If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband’s heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband’s heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife’s heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract.

So, the husband’s heirs argue she died first, and he inherited from her then died – so now it’s their money/property to inherit! The wife’s family claims the opposite is true. What do they do?

Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them.

Split it up! But we know Beit Shammai doesn’t usually win the argument.

And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband’s heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband’s property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife’s possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman’s father.

So, Hillel says that what the wife brought into the marriage reverts back to her family. The usufruct property also goes to her heirs. What do his heirs get? Well, they don’t have to pay her ketubah which she would have been rightfully owed if he died first.

This does make me think of those late in life marriages where the kids worry about inheritance. What happens your parent/family member dies before this new person? Do they get everything? Is that fair? Maybe the nightmare of a simultaneous death is not a nightmare when it comes to inheritance. Then both families inherit from their relative instead of this new person.

Bava Batra 157

Well, I don’t know about a gem, but todays daf gives us an amazing story line for a movie or novel.

On the daf, father and son both die when a house collapses. The father’s sons and grandsons (the son’s brothers and children) then begin to argue over who inherits!

Not the best of behavior, but certainly interesting.

Perhaps the gem is “it is a mitzva incumbent upon the orphans to repay their father’s debt.”

This seems to be teaching that while it’s not our responsibility to make up for the sins of our parents it’s a mitzvah to repair wrongs done the people closest to us if we’re able to. That would make a good movie as well.

Bava Batra 156

The rabbis seem to be making a lot of rules to make sure sons can inherit even if it’s not the intention of the parents. Until today….

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Elazar: There was an incident involving the mother of the sons of Rokhel, who was sick, and who said: My brooch shall be given to my daughter, and it is valued at twelve hundred dinars. And this woman subsequently died, and the Sages upheld her statement. This indicates that a person on his deathbed can gift property without an act of acquisition. Rabbi Elazar said to them: That case was different; the sons of Rokhel should be buried by their mother, i.e., he cursed them. It is not possible to bring a proof from this incident, as these sons were wicked people.

The gem? Don’t be a jerk.

Happy Thanksgiving

Bava Batra 155

Puberty usually begins between the ages of 8-14 (it’s just he beginning). Some develop later. The Talmud says that we can determine if someone is an “adult” by witnessing two pubic hairs. Usually 12 for girls and 13 for boys. But what if they are late bloomers? On today’s daf the rabbis encounter men who haven’t seemed to go through puberty yet . . .at 20!

The Gemara asks: And if he did not develop the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man, until when is he considered a minor if he does not develop two pubic hairs? Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches in a baraita: He is considered a minor until most of his years have elapsed, i.e., until he is thirty-five years old. When the case of one who had not developed pubic hair would come before Rabbi Ḥiyya, he would offer the following advice: If the person was thin, he would say to those appearing in court: Cause him to become fat, and if he was fat, he would say to them: Cause him to become thin. This is because these signs indicating puberty sometimes develop due to excessive thinness, and sometimes they develop due to corpulence.

I love when the daf does science! I am pasting a quote from the Journal of Endochronology below. It basically backs up Rabbi Hiyya in that malnutrition and excessive thinness will delay puberty. (https://joe.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/joe/242/2/JOE-19-0223.xml)

“Among its numerous modulators, metabolic and nutritional cues are fundamental modifiers of the timing of puberty. Reproduction is an energy-consuming process, especially in females, and therefore, acquisition and maintenance of reproductive capacity are tightly bound to the state of body energy reserves. Accordingly, conditions of persistent deregulation of energy and metabolic homeostasis are correlated with alterations in puberty onset. Thus, while chronic energy deficiency (e.g. in malnutrition or anorexia) is associated with delayed puberty, excess of body energy stores (e.g. in obesity) is commonly been linked to earlier onset of puberty (Hill & Elias 2018, Manfredi-Lozano et al. 2018“

Excessive weight can mess with our hormones as well. These rabbis may not have the strongest math skills, but they certainly knew a thing or two that seems like more advanced medical knowledge today.

Bava Batra 154

Today’s gem is a bit disturbing as a family wants to claim property and to do so wants to exhume the dead!

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita: There was an incident in Bnei Brak involving one who sold some of his father’s property that he had inherited, and he died, and the members of his family came and contested the sale, saying: He was a minor at the time of his death, and therefore the sale was not valid. And they came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to exhume the corpse in order to examine it and ascertain whether or not the heir was a minor at the time of his death? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is not permitted for you to disgrace him for the sake of a monetary claim. And furthermore, signs indicating puberty are likely to change after death, and therefore nothing can be proved by exhuming the body.

The gem? We do all we can to respect the dead in Judaism.

Bava Batra 153

My favorite part of today’s daf is a woman who knows other rabbis rule differently than Arab. He tries to be sneaky assuming that she won’t understand and he is out in his place… in ten water.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who wrote in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death. She came before Rava. Rava acted with regard to her case in accordance with his halakhic ruling, and he ruled that she cannot retract the gift. She did not accept the ruling, and she constantly troubled him, saying that he had not judged her case properly. Rava said to Rav Pappa, his scribe, son of Rav Ḥanan: Go, write for her a ruling in her favor, and write in the ruling the phrase: He may hire replacements at their expense, or deceive them to get them to return to work. This is a phrase from the mishna (Bava Metzia 75b) that discusses the ruling in the case of one who hired laborers to perform a task that cannot be delayed, and they quit. Rava intended this phrase to indicate to the court that the ruling was merely a ruse in order to persuade the woman to leave. The woman understood the ruse. She said: May his ship sink; you are deceiving me. Rava had his clothes immersed in water so that the curse should be fulfilled in this alternative manner, but even so he was not saved from the sinking of his ship.

Yes girl. Yes.

Rav, don’t underestimate a woman.