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

Bava Batra 142

When does life begin? Is a fetus a person?

Again, the questions of today are discussed on our daf.

We are discussing inheritance and the rabbis want to know if the unborn fetus can inherit…

The Gemara clarifies: As Rav Naḥman says: With regard to one who transfers ownership of an item to a fetus, the fetus does not acquire it. . . Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Nidda 43b–44a): A one-day-old child inherits property and bequeaths property. One can infer that if the child is one day old, yes, he inherits property; but a fetus does not.

Clearly, a fetus has a different status from a living, one day old child. the rabbis rule a fetus is not a person that has come into the world and cannot inherit.

However, the rabbis give one exception: if the father is on his deathbed and wants his unborn child to inherit – they are not so heartless that they deny his dying wish.

This is out of sensitivity to the dying – in no other case can the fetus have the status of a living person.

Bava Batra 141

I sat on a Bet Din today (the “court” for a conversion candidate). The candidate was pregnant and so the first question asked was not about her Jewish journey . . but if the baby is a boy or a girl. When the Rabbi who asked heard it was a girl, she shared her opinion that girls are the best.

You might be surprised to find out that, on today’s daf, Shmuel and Rav Hidsa agree with her. We see on the daf, a father pledge that if his wife gives birth to a son he will give him 100 zuz, but if she gives birth to a daughter she will get 200 zuz!

And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons.

Why would it be good for sons if she has a daughter first?

There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, i.e., helps in their upbringing, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father.

Okay, it’s good for the sons because their big sister will help raise them. And somehow this protects from the evil eye? The Maharsha explains this idea comes from the fact that a first born son will inherit a double portion, which will inevitably create a certain amount of jealousy and tension between brothers. However, if a daughter is born first, all of that tension dissipates as the boys will all be equal.

So, do they want a girl just for the benefit of the sons?! Not Rav Hisda.

Rav Ḥisda said: And as for myself, I prefer daughters to sons.

So, why the preference? The Rashbam says that all of Rav Ḥisda’s sons died during his lifetime. While Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and says that some of Rav Ḥisda’s sons lived, but his daughters married men who were great Sages and leaders of their generation – so the girls brought him more pride. A third opinion is brought by the Maharal who says that Rav Ḥisda’s daughters were righteous and scholarly and were simply better than his sons.

Whatever the reason, he was a girl dad.

May we all be happy with whatever child God gives us, male, female, non-binary, Torah scholars or not.

Bava Batra 140

A man arguing the world is against him just because he’s a man. A man arguing he shouldn’t have to suffer for minority protections. Non-binary individuals being shafted and overlooked by laws.

No, it’s not the 2024 election. It’s the daf.

After learning that, if an estate is too small for both the male children to inherit and the female minor children to be supported from the produce, the boys don’t inherit so the girls can be supported we read:

Admon says, I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance.

And now, the non-binary individual:

MISHNA: With regard to one who left behind sons and daughters and a tumtum, whose halakhic status as male or female is indeterminate, the halakha is as follows: When the estate is large the males direct the tumtum to the females and exclude him from the inheritance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is female. When the estate is small, the females direct the tumtum to the males and exclude him from receiving sustenance, claiming that perhaps the tumtum is male.

You get it? So, if the estate is big, so the boys will inherit and the girls just get some produce to get them by – the tumtum, the non-binary child, is considered like a daugher (so get’s the least). But if the estate is too small and only can support the girls but the boys can’t inherit – the tumtum is considered like a son! Meaning they have to go begging!

But this isn’t the only interpretation. It get’s even worse: Rather, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to inherit but he does not actually inherit. Here too, with regard to sustenance, according to Abaye, the baraita means that it is fitting for the tumtum to be sustained, but he is not actually sustained.

So, the non-binary child gets nothing!

Now, I bet you’re wondering where the gem is.

First, the sexism and obliviousness to privilege is nothing new. Non-binary people are also nothing new.

What my gem really is – is that, as disturbing as these texts are, they start a conversation about equal rights and who needs protection. They also include the non-binary individual in community and family. They don’t fit the standard, but the text struggles to find them a place. And that may not be as high as the first born son – but, it’s still part of the family and community, and is not forced to choose a gender! As unenlightened as this text is, it is more enlightened then DeSantis.

Bava Batra 139

All of these inheritance laws seems to put daughters as an afterthought . . . until today.

MISHNA: In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see the statement of Admon.

. . . Rather, Rava said: The court appropriates sustenance for the daughters until they reach their majority, and the remainder is given to the sons.

“Admon says: Because I am a male, must I lose out?” I am not going to go where I want to go – about a man complaining the one time the scales are tipped out of his gender’s favor. Instead, I will talk about the reality of the fact that we don’t live, andhtey certainly didn’t live, in a world of equality of the sexes.

I also want to highlight that Rabban Gamaliel says: “I see the words of Admon.” Gamliel is saying – yeah, it’s not fair that just because there is little to distribute, the sons get nothing. But, he does fail to point out that, if it’s a big estate – is it really fair that the girls get nothing beyond the bare minimum needed to survival . . . until they’re 12.5 years old?! But, in their world, they would never think that way. It’s just how it was.

And what’s the law? Despite it not being “fair” the sages rule that, if the estate is too small, it’s the girls who are sustained. Fair or not, it was unsafe for young women to be put in so vulnerable a situation.

But are we actually egalitarian? It’s still a world where women are not paid what men make; as well as a world where, when safety is the issue, women and children go first.

Bava Batra 138

Is it okay to turn down a gift?

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: If one writes a document granting his property to another, and the other person says: I do not want it, he acquires it, and this is the halakha even if he is standing and shouting in protest that he does not want it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he does not acquire it.

I can see it:

“Happy birthday, here’s your gift . .. ”

“I don’t want it!!”

So, what’s happening here? I don’t think this is all about not wanting your parents; outdated furniture.

Perhaps it that, while we should be very grateful for gifts, especially those that come from God, some gifts come with strings attached, and we don’t want to be beholden to someone (especially for a gift we didn’t ask for).

But a gift freely given, without any expectation of reciprocity . . . those are beautiful, and hard to come by. That’s why they say burial is the highest mitzvah we can do for another person – we know they can’t pay us back and we do it anyway.

Bava Batra 137

The Gemara explains that Rava teaches us that a gift given on the condition that it be returned is considered a valid gift.

Each morning we wake up and say a prayer of gratitude that God has returned our souls to us. The concenpt being that our souls are in God’s hands. The gift of life is one that God gives to us – while we have it, we get to use it however we want, but, eventually, we will have to give it back.

Is it a gift? The best gift there is.

Bava Batra 136

What do you do if you don’t know the answer to a question? Ask your rabbi!

The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Avuh was sick, and Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman entered to visit him. Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: Ask him whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei or the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna: I do not know Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning; can I ask him about the halakha? Rav Huna said to Rav Naḥman: You ask him if the halakha is in accordance with his opinion or not, and I will tell you his reasoning afterward. Rav Naḥman asked Rabba bar Avuh. Rabba bar Avuh said to him that this is what Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

So much that I love about this scene. Two rabbis who want to ask THEIR rabbi a question, but they’re scared because theu don’t want to look stupid. And so one is trying to talk the other into asking. All of this is happening right in front of the rabbi . . . who is sick and maybe should be relaxing instead of teaching.

But that’s why I love it.

When my grandpa was sick, he loved to talk Torah. It made him feel young and healthy and needed. One of the ways we can show honor to our parents, the elderly, and to teachers, is to show that we still value learning from them.

When I was sick, I wanted my identity to be more than that of patient. So, maybe Rabba bar Avuh felt the same way. Maybe their questions helped to make him feel better.

Bava Batra 135

Today’s gem shows two things 1) that there are times when it’s okay to exaggerate, and 2) the idea of levirate marriage (a woman marrying her brother-in-law if her husband dies before they have kids) turns many a person’s stomach, including the dying husband!

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man, who was presumed to have brothers but no children, who was dying. His wife was therefore presumed to be obligated in levirate marriage. Those with him said to him: To whom may his wife, i.e., your wife, be married? Is she required to enter into levirate marriage, or is she permitted to marry whomever she wishes? He said to them: She is fit to marry even a High Priest.

Yes! Okay, what we need to know is that the High Priest can only marry a virgin, so this is clearly an exaggeration (but of course some ancient rabbis try to argue it’s literal – come on guys). So, what is the husband saying? Don’t make her marry my brother, let her marry whomever she wants!

That’s a wonderful man. He wants his wife to find love after he passes and not be forced into any union. A beautiful example of being loving to the very end.

Bava Batra 134

When the world is upside down, at least we can count on the daf. Before I get to the gem, I just want to take the time to highlight that the daf also features a rabbis whose righteousness is so intense:

The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he would sit and engage in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.

Boom.

But our gem is a story about a gift being a gift. Once you give it, you don’t get to decide what happens with it. It’s also about trying to circumvent the rules and it backfiring. Needless to say, it’s a good one.

An incident occurred involving someone in the city of Beit Ḥoron whose father had vowed not to derive benefit from him, and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted his father to be able to participate in the wedding meal (he wants him to celebrate his grandson’s marraige). And he therefore said to another: The courtyard where the wedding will take place and the wedding meal are hereby given to you as a gift, but they are given to you only so that my father will come and eat with us at the meal. The son wanted to circumvent the prohibition imposed by the vow and enable his father to participate in the meal, so he transferred ownership to someone else for that purpose. The recipient said to him: If they are mine, they are all hereby consecrated to Heaven, i.e., the Temple, and are forbidden to everyone. The son said to him in anger: I did not give you my property so that you should consecrate them to Heaven. The recipient said to him: You gave me your property only so that you and your father would eat and drink and thereby appease each other, and the sin of transgressing the vow would be hung on his, i.e., my, head, as I enabled the transgression. The mishna continues: In reference to this incident, the Sages said: Any gift that is not so absolute that if the recipient were to consecrate it, the gift would be consecrated, is not a gift.

Love this gem – a gift is not a gift if you won’t let go of control of how it’s used.

Bava Batra 133

Is it cool to cut your child out of the will? Today we get a new Mishna which says that it’s not . . . unless the kid is “improper.” The question comes down to who is the improper one, the dad or the child.

MISHNA: With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.

Now, we get a FABOULOUS little story about what happened when one dad tried to cut his son out of his inheritance.

Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a vessel [illiyyata] full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai’s crown weaver. After the son’s wife gave birth, he bought her a fish [binita]. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it. . . He brought it to the Temple treasury, and they appraised it as having the value of thirteen vessels [illiyyata] full of dinars. The treasurers said to him: There are seven illiyyata of dinars at our disposal to pay you for the pearl, but there are not an additional six. He said to the treasurers: Give me the seven in exchange for the pearl, and as for the additional six that you owe me, they are hereby consecrated to Heaven.

So, dad cup him our of inheriting one bag of dinars by dedicating it to the temple (brilliant). But, the child ends us getting 7 bags of dinars from the temple!

What’s the lesson? Is it that the dad was wrong, the rabbis should have objected to what he did, but they didn’t and so heaven corrected the error by rewarding the son 7 fold?

Or is it that some guys have all the luck? Even guys who don’t deserve it.

If I were to rewrite the story as a children’s book, it would be the first. This guy got the reward he deserved, and was so generous he gave half of what he discovered to the Temple. (The 6 bags that the Temple owed him plus the one from his father that should have gone to him but didn’t.)