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

Bava Batra 152

We have learned that gifts require a contract or an official act of kinyan with one exception, when someone makes a gift on their death bed. But, what if someone makes a gift on his deathbed where an act of acquisition happens as well – what then?

It was stated that the amora’im disagreed with regard to a deed pertaining to the gift of a person on his deathbed in which it is written that an act of acquisition was also performed. In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav: The person on his deathbed caused the recipient to mount two steeds, i.e., he strengthened the validity of his gift in two different ways. And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift, as it may not be a valid gift. The Gemara explains: In the study hall of Rav they say in the name of Rav that he caused him to mount two steeds. On the one hand, it is like the gift of a healthy person, but on the other hand, it is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. It is like the gift of a healthy person, as, if he recovers he cannot retract the gift, because an act of acquisition was performed. It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, as, if he said that the loan owed to him should be given to so-and-so, the loan owed to him is acquired by so-and-so, whereas a healthy person cannot transfer his right to collect a debt except in the presence of all three parties. And Shmuel said: I do not know what I should rule with regard to this gift. Perhaps the fact that an act of acquisition was performed indicates that he resolved to transfer it to him only with a deed. The gift of a person on his deathbed takes effect only after he dies, and a deed is not effective if it is delivered after the death of the owner.

So, Rav rules that, no matter what, the gift cannot be retracted. I love the metaphor of it running on two steeds – super secure.

But Shmuel is not so sure as a deed is ineffective after death.

Maimonides comes and clarifies how to rule by teaching (Mishneh Torah, Ownerless Property and Gifts 8:11), “If, however, the kinyan was made solely to augment the legal power of the recipient – e.g., it was written: “And a kinyan was performed to amplify this gift” – the gift is binding.”

So, if you do something just to make doubly sure, tell people that’s why you’re dong it.

Bava Batra 151

What can you give away? What can we sell?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Torah scroll, what is the halakha? Is it considered property or not? Does one say that since it is not sold, as it is prohibited to sell a Torah scroll, it is therefore not considered property? Or perhaps one says that since it may be sold in order to enable one to study Torah or to marry a woman, it is considered property. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

This turns out to be the law. As is taught in the Mishneh Torah, Tefillin, Mezuzah and the Torah Scroll 10:2

A proper Torah scroll is treated with great sanctity and honor. It is forbidden for a person to sell a Torah scroll even if he has nothing to eat. [This prohibition applies] even if he possesses many scrolls or if he [desires to] sell an old scroll in order to purchase a new one.
A Torah scroll may never be sold except for two purposes:
a) to use the proceeds to study Torah;
b) to use the proceeds to marry.
[Even in these instances, permission to sell is granted only] when the person has nothing else to sell.

Bava Batra 150

Today’s daf focuses in on language and gets really specific about listening to every word to hear what is really being said. This can be seen in the following:

It is obvious that if one said: I give my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires all of his utensils, excluding his wheat and barley. If one said: I give all my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires even the wheat and barley, and he acquires even the upper millstone, since it is occasionally removed from its place. He acquires all the property that is not land or houses, except for the lower millstone, which is never moved. If he said: I give everything that can be moved to so-and-so, that person acquires even the lower millstone, as it is possible to move it.

So, we are comparing:

I give my movable property to so-and-so
I give all my movable property to so-and-so
I give everything that can be moved to so-and-so

One might think these are all saying the same thing, but the gemara says no. Hard to imagine someone on their deathbed being able to be so precise in their words. But, if someone is on their deathbed and speaking, we should make sure to listen to every word they say.

Bava Batra 149

Rave is a big deal. This fourth generation amoraim (~320 – ~350CE) is famous for his debates with Abaye. According to Sefaria, “Having studied under several teachers, he eventually became the head of the academy in Mechuza, where he attracted numerous students. He was affluent and, on occasion, successfully advocated for the Jewish community with the mother of King Shapur II of Persia.”

So, rich, learned, a big deal. That’s why today’s daf caught me off guard.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear, Issur the convert had twelve thousand dinars deposited in the house of Rava. Rav Mari, Issur’s son, whose conception was not in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was conceived before his father converted, but his birth was in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was born after his father converted, was in a study hall elsewhere when his father was on his deathbed.

Situation, Rava has 12,000 dinars (a ton of money) that belongs to Issur. Issur is about to die. Normally, his son would inherit the money. But Rava has possession of it, and he is a big time rabbi who can make the law work for him . . .

Rava (thinking he could keep the money for himself) said: How can Rav Mari acquire these dinars? If he attempts to acquire the money as inheritance, he is not fit to inherit from Issur. Since he was conceived before his father converted, he is therefore not halakhically considered his son. If he attempts to acquire it as a gift, the Sages equated the halakhic status of the gift of a person on his deathbed with that of inheritance. Therefore, anywhere that the property can be acquired as inheritance, it can also be acquired as a gift, and anywhere that the property cannot be acquired as inheritance, it cannot be acquired as a gift. If he attempts to acquire the dinars by pulling them, which is a formal act of acquisition, he will not be able to do this, as the dinars are not with him. If he attempts to acquire them by means of symbolic exchange– money cannot be acquired by means of symbolic exchange. If he attempts to acquire them by means of the acquisition of land, Issur does not have any land. If he attempts to acquire them by means of verbal instruction made by his father in the presence of all three parties, i.e., the giver, the recipient, and the bailee, if he sends for me, the bailee, I shall not go, as without the presence of the bailee he cannot transfer ownership of the money.

Sneaky Rava. Seems he is trying to keep that 12,000 for himself and justifying it through prejudice and avarice.

Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, objected to this: Why is Rav Mari (Issur’s son) unable to acquire the money? But why not let Issur admit that these dinars are owned by Rav Mari, and he shall transfer ownership of them to Rav Mari by means of a document of admission? In the meantime, a document of admission stating that the dinars belonged to Rav Mari emerged from Issur’s house. Rava became angry, and said: They are teaching people legal claims and causing me loss!

His plan was foiled!

I guess even guys so great they are nick-named “Rava” meaning “great one” are not always so great.

Bava Batra 148

We have learned that, normally, if someone is giving property, it has to be “acquired” either through a deed or through taking possession of the item. However, if someone is on their deathbed, these rules are waived. So, today’s daf wonders: what if someone thinks they are dying and says who gets what only to recover? Is the gift still a gift? or does the dying person get everything back?

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: In the case of a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, the manner in which he divided his property is examined. If it appears that he was intending to divide his entire estate among various recipients, then if he dies, all the recipients acquire their gifts. If he recovers, he can retract all of the gifts, in accordance with the ruling of the mishna.

He goes on to say that if he doesn’t give away the entire estate – then the gifts are valid EVEN IF he recovers. So, all these rules to honor someone on their deathbed have a worrisome loophole – be sure you are actually going to die, or you might recover only to not have a place to hang your hat.

Bava Batra 147

We have been learning about deathbed requests or who gets what. Today, we get a very interesting proof . . . from someone who is a victim of suicide.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: “And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and he arose, and went to his home, to his city; and he instructed his household, and strangled himself” (II Samuel 17:23). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property.

First, a short review of who Ahitophel was. Ahitophel was a counselor for King David. When David was aging, his sons began to fight over who would inherit the crown. Ahitophel supported David’s son Absalom and was conspiring with him behind the scenes to overthrow the government and take over the kingship before David died. David was suspicious and so had a friend, Hushai, try and figure out what was going on. When Ahitophel gave David advice that David did not follow, Ahitophel figured out that David was onto his plan with Absalom to overthrow the thrown. He went home to Giloh and hanged himself.

On our daf, they notice the order of words, that Ahitophel “instructed his household” before he died by suicide. This is showing that someone who is about to die (if even by their own hands) can give instruction on what to do with their property.

The daf continues by saying he gave his sons advice before he killed himself:

The Sages taught: Ahithophel instructed his sons with regard to three matters: Do not be participants in a dispute. And do not rebel against the kingship of the house of David. And if the festival of Shavuot is a clear day, sow wheat, as it is a sign that the wheat crop will thrive.

The first two relate to his life. Ahitophel put himself in the middle of a dispute between King David’s sons AND he was planning a rebellion against King David.

But the third? It’s a bit of farming advice that reminds me of Groundhogs day and if the groundhog sees his shadow. But, maybe he is saying, plant for the future and in essence – keep your nose down and do your work.

Bava Batra 146

What happens if your fiancé dies, or calls off the wedding before you get married? Who keeps the ring? The dowry? All of this is tackled on the daf today. The gem comes from an interesting situation where a man suspects his fiancé does not have a perfect sense of smell – and that’s enough for him not to want to marry her. So, he sets up a test. . .

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving one man who was told that his wife, i.e., his betrothed, was one whose sense of smell was impaired, and he followed her into a ruin, carrying a date with him, to check her to see if she could correctly identify the smell. He said to her: I smell the scent of radish in the Galilee. She said to him: Who will give us of the dates of Jericho that I shall eat them, hinting that she smelled the date he had brought with him.

Okay! So, she can smell! Now she is good enough for him. So, are they engaged?

The ruin collapsed upon her and she died.

Herein lies the dilemma. Is she his fiancé? He would have denied it had she not smelled the date. (And maybe if the walls didn’t collapse she would have said she didn’t want to marry such a shallow man.) Does he get to inherit from her as if he is her husband?

The Sages said: Since he went into the ruin after her only to check her sense of smell, and not for the purpose of consummating their marriage, if she dies, he does not inherit from her, as the marriage was not effected, and a man does not inherit from his betrothed.

Sorry buddy. You don’t get the sympathy card here. Nor do you get to inherit as if you were all in on this woman.

Bava Batra 145

Today’s daf ends with a slew of gems!

The Sages taught in a baraita: There are different types of Torah scholars. There is a scholar who is wealthy in figurative property and wealthy in public renown; this is the master of homiletics. (Someone who is good at preaching!) There is a scholar who is wealthy in coins and wealthy in houses; this is the master of dialectics. There is one who is wealthy in oil and wealthy in hidden stores; this is the master of halakhic traditions. Everyone is dependent on the owner of wheat; this is the master of Talmud, who understands the reasons behind the rulings and traditions.

Yes! Love this. It gets better.

Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “All the days of the poor are terrible; and for the good-hearted it is always a feast” (Proverbs 15:15)? “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to the master of Talmud, who is wearied by the difficulty of his Talmud study. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to the master of Mishna, who recites the mishnayot by rote and is not wearied thereby.

Ha! This is so funny. As you can see, Talmud study is HARD! Whereas Mishna study, according to this, more of a manner of memorization, not understanding and application. But . . .

Rava says: The opposite is true. And this is consistent with that which Rav Mesharshiyya says in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them; and he that chops wood shall be warmed thereby” (Ecclesiastes 10:9). “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them”; these are the masters of Mishna. They exert themselves to memorize the mishnayot, but since one cannot reach practical conclusions from the mishna, they are comparable to one who carries a heavy load without benefiting from it. “He that chops wood shall be warmed thereby”; these are the masters of Talmud, who attain the benefit of their exertions in the form of practical conclusions.

Real world applicaitons baby.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to one who has a wicked wife. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to one who has a good wife. Rabbi Yannai says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to one who is delicate [istenis] and overly sensitive, because he constantly encounters unpleasant situations.

Love this! If you’re overly sensitive everything is terrible!

“And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to one who is relaxed and not particular with regard to his food or his surroundings. (i.e. someone who is “chill”)

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to an empathetic person, because he is constantly affected by the suffering in the world. (Tell me about it brother.) “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to a cruel person, who is not pained by the suffering of others. (Must be nice . . . for them.)

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to a person of impatient disposition. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to a person of patient disposition.

As someone who suffers from impatience, I agree.

A great was to end the daf. Study can be hard, but if you’re going to do it – learn it well enough to apply it to life. Marry a kind person. Don’t be too sensitive. Chill out. Care about others but know your pain won’t take their’s away. And last, but not least, most of live is how you react to it – if you’re in a traffic jam, your anger and frustration won’t make it go any faster.

Bava Batra 144

I want to dedicate this daf to the memory of my teacher Dr. Lenny Kravetz. He was hilarious and brilliant. He was once interviewed by VH1 as if he was the rock star. He told lots of funny stories and spoke a mile a minute. Yesterday’s daf made me think of him, and then the day ended by me learning that he passed (and me forgetting to post).

The mishna teaches: If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. Ravin sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Ela: They taught this only in a case where he became ill through negligence. But if he became ill through circumstances beyond his control, the cost of the treatment is paid from the middle, i.e., from the common inheritance. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is considered negligence? This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: All occurrences that befall man are in the hand of Heaven except for colds and obstacles [paḥim], from which one is able to protect himself, as it is stated: “Colds and snares are on the path of the crooked; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5).

What’s the situation? Brothers are going to inherit when one of them becomes sick. The daf teaches that they pay for the brother’s sickness and treatment from the total pot of money, not after it’s divvied up . . unless the brother is sick because of his own idiocy. Dr. Kravetz used to say that is you left without an umbrella, you don’t get to complain about the rain. He would have said that this guy had a small bucket – a reference to Maimonides who said that God gives each of us a certain mental capacity to understand the world and it was up to full our buckets with understanding in order to get closer to God. If you have a big bucket, you have a big understanding, a small bucket, small understanding, and if you don’t have a bucket you don’t have a bucket!

May his memory be for a blessing.

Bava Batra 143

What happens when a gift arrives without a card attached which says who it’s intended for?

There was a certain man who sent swaths of silk to his home as a gift. Rabbi Ami says that in such a case, those swaths that are suitable for the sons’ garments are given to the sons, and those that are suitable for the daughters’ garments are given to the daughters. The Gemara comments: We said this only when he does not have daughters-in-law, but if he has daughters-in-law, it is presumed that he sent it for his daughters-in-law. And if his daughters are not married, it is presumed that he does not forsake his daughters and send to his daughters-in-law, so the silk is given to his daughters.

I love this. First, the more thoughtful the gift, the more obvious it is who the gift is intended for. So, if you’re son wants to be a fashion designer and your daughter a concert violinist and a mannequin is gifted without a card – it’s safe for assume it’s for the son.

A great daf as we start preparing for gift giving season.