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

Bava Batra 132

The ketuba is one of the many protections that the Sages developed for a married woman to prevent her husband from leaving her financially destitute. A key guarantee of the ketuba is a sum of money that the woman is promised should her husband die or divorce her. What if he does not have that cash on hand? Then she would collect the money promised in her ketuba from that land he owns.

So, what happens if that land is given away? To his sons? What if he gives it to her while she and he are both living?

We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 3:7): If a man writes a document granting his property to his sons, and he wrote a document granting any amount of land to his wife, she has lost her right to receive payment of her marriage contract.

Okay, numbers are not given, but the ruling here is saying that, if the man subsequently dies and he has already given all his land away, and his wife participated, then she has lost her ketubah – meaning she cannot get the money owed to her from her wedding contract from the land – because there is no land! (If he makes money after this, or buys more land, she can get it from that resource.)

The Gemara questions this: Because he wrote a document granting her any amount of land, she has lost her right to receive payment of her marriage contract? Why should this be? Rav says: This mishna is referring to a case where the husband transfers ownership of his property to his sons through his wife’s participation in a formal act of acquisition. Not only did she not protest the transfer of property to the sons, but she facilitated the transaction. Clearly, she agreed to waive payment of her marriage contract. And Shmuel says: It is referring not only to a case where she actually participates in the act of acquisition, but also to a case where he distributes the property to his sons in her presence, and she is silent and does not ask about her marriage contract. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: It is referring to a case where he says to her: Take only this parcel of land for your marriage contract.

So, why is this the case? Three explanations are given: 1) She was there and agreed to it; 2) she was there and did not object; 3) She was there and was explicitly told that she was given that piece of land for her ketubah.

I like this because the rabbis seem to fear that one might read this and think that a man can cheat his wife out of her inheritance. The three answers, while different, all make it explicit that the woman has to know and understand what is happening.

The Ketubah is a protection for the woman, but clearly it’s not enough to just rely on justice. She needs to pay attention and speak up for what’s hers.

May we all not just assume that justice will happen and learn to speak up for ourselves and others.

Bava Batra 131

Another gem where a rabbi admits he is/was wrong!

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi later retracted his response, and said: My response was because of immaturity that I had in me, and I was insolent in the presence of Rabbi Natan the Babylonian by responding in a manner that is incorrect.

Oh! I would love to hear people own their wrongness like this. True gem.

Bava Batra 130

We live in a call out culture. A place where people are much more quick to tell you that you are wrong on social media than they are to say anything to your face. Perhaps that’s why I appreciate this gem from today’s daf. Rava confronts the other Rabbi‘s and gives them advice on what to do when they don’t agree with one of his rulings, both in life and in death.

Rava said to Rav Pappa and to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: When a legal ruling of mine comes before you and you perceive a refutation of it, do not tear it up until you come before me to discuss it. If I have a valid explanation, I will tell you, and if not, I will retract my ruling. If a ruling of mine comes before you after my death, when you can no longer discuss it with me, do not tear it up, but do not learn from it either, i.e., do not rule in accordance with it. Do not tear it up, as had I been there, perhaps I would have told you a valid explanation that you would have accepted; but do not learn from it either, as a judge has only what his eyes see as the basis for his ruling. One must rule according to his own understanding.

So here is a good rule for us to take from this page, if somebody teaches something that we don’t agree with, we should take the time to approach them and ask them questions and find out why they think the way that they do. We should not just “tear up” the ruling. If somebody has passed away and we question them, they can no longer answer for their thinking at the time. and so, since they can no longer answer for themselves, we should not rip them to shreds, but that doesn’t mean that we have to follow what they taught.

It sounds easy, but it seems to be the hardest thing in our current culture.

Bava Batra 129

Remember the “not” phase? When someone would day something like “you look great today,” and before the person could say thank you the speaker would yell, “not!” taking back the compliment. Horrible stuff. But I was reminded of it reading today’s daf.

We have learned back on daf 126 that a dying person cannot change biblical inheritance laws, but that they can get around those laws by giving gifts! If I am gifting this person x,y,and z after I die, then the inheritance laws don’t effect x, y, and z.

With regard to one on his deathbed who apportions his property orally, granting it to his sons as a gift, and he increased the portion given to one of his sons and reduced the portion given to one other son, or equated the portion of the firstborn to the portions of the other sons, his statement stands.

However, he Gemara this will only work in cases where the statements are made בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר tokh ke-dei dibbur – when they are said “in the same breath.” And the halakha is that the legal status of any statement interrupted or retracted within the time required for speaking a short phrase is like that of continuous speech.

How long can we pause? The time it takes to great your rabbi, so, “Shalom Aleich(ah) Rabbi!)

So, that “not” pause shouldn’t be longer than it takes to say those three words. And maybe if you are thinking “Peace unto you Rabbi,” you won’t be such a jerk and say something like “not” to take back a compliment.

Bava Batra 128

Can you bear witness if you’re blind?

In Israel, there’s a restaurant run by people who are blind. The restaurant is completely dark. In order to find your seat you are guided by someone who is blind. You said and you eat, and you see absolutely nothing. But the whole experience heightens all of your other senses. It’s not only wonderful food, but a learning experience about what it means to not have one sense and how sometimes it is not a handicap but a way to heighten your other senses.

On today’s daf, we are reminded that just because you are blind, doesn’t mean you cannot bear witness. Just because you can’t see doesn’t mean you don’t know.

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama concerning testimony: If one knew information that could serve as testimony about the boundary of another’s land before he became blind, and then he became blind, he is disqualifiedfrom bearing witness in a dispute as to the boundaries of that person’s properties. And Shmuel said: He is fit to bear witness, as it is possible for him to determine the boundaries of the fields despite his blindness. But he is not fit to identify a movable item, e.g., a cloak, as he cannot see it. And Rav Sheshet said: He can identify even a cloak, as it is possible for him to determine its length and its width. But he is not fit to identify a piece of silver. And Rav Pappa said: He can identify even a piece of silver, as it is possible for him to determine its weight.

Bava Batra 127

Today’s gem is to admit it when you’ve made a mistake. Rava makes a ruling. As the authority, people would follow him, so, when he learns more and realizes he is wrong he doesn’t use his authority to over ride what others have taught him, instead he admits he is wrong. But not just a quiet, you’re right, I was wrong. No. This guy gets everyone together. . .

Rava then established an amora to repeat his lesson to the masses aloud and taught: The statements that I said to you are a mistake on my part.

If only we could all do this. If we could all be open to learning, to views different than our own, and to admitting when we’re wrong . . .

Bava Batra 126

“Spit in your eye” is also an American English idiom that means to purposefully annoy or upset someone. But, on our daf today, getting a little spit in the eye seems like a good thing! Well, with some caveats.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: From where do you know? He said to Rabbi Ḥanina: Because when people would come before his father to obtain a cure for their ailing eyes, he would say to them: Go to my son Shikhḥat, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals this ailment. The Gemara asks: But perhaps he is his mother’s firstborn? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that the saliva of a father’s firstborn heals this ailment but the saliva of a mother’s firstborn does not heal this ailment.

Oh good Lord.

So, a witness is trying to prove that this person is a first born son. How does he know? His spit heals ailments, and that’s only true of a first born son for a particular man (mom doesn’t’ matter for this magic spittle).

The daf is only curious if this testimony is enough to give the man status as first born son. But for me? I am wondering what they think this spit is healing?!

When I was in India, our tour guide talked about Ayurveda, a whole-body (holistic) system of medicine that began in India more than 3,000 years ago. He had to put on his glasses to see something, but told us he soon would not need his glasses. Why? Because he had been using his saliva, the first of the morning, in his eyes, and soon he would be cured.

Clearly, it hadn’t worked yet! Maybe he didn’t know that it only works if you’re the first born son. Maybe he needs to get another guy to spit in his eye?

(Also, don’t do this. Besides it being gross, scientists have checked it out and it’s not only not good for your eyes, but saliva has bacteria and it can cause damage.)

Bava Batra 125

I just watched the live action version of The Jungle Book. Unlike many Disney live action remakes, it wasn’t just an exact copy of the cartoon version. This one even had a different ending! (I won’t spoil it.) But, it’s not just Disney that has two versions of the same tale.

On our daf today, Abaye mentions “the case of the grandmother.” The rabbis share their interpretation – but this exact case is discussed in Sephardi manuscripts and we get a different reasoning on the ruling!

What is the case of the grandmother that was mentioned by Abaye? The Gemara explains: There was a certain man who was about to die who said to those present:

All my property is given to my grandmother, and after she dies, it is given to my heirs, not inherited by her heirs. He then died. He had a married daughter, who died during the lifetime of her husband and during the lifetime of her father’s grandmother. After her father’s grandmother died, her husband came and claimed the inheritance, as his wife was the heir of her father, and he is his wife’s heir.

Rav Huna said: When her father said that his property is given: To my heirs, he meant: And even to the heirs of my heirs. Therefore, since his daughter’s husband is the heir of his heir, he is entitled to the inheritance. And Rav Anan said that he meant: To my heirs, but not to the heirs of my heirs. Therefore, the husband is not entitled to the property.

The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan, but not due to his reasoning. The Gemara explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan that the husband does not inherit the property. But not due to his reasoning, as Rav Anan holds that even if his daughter had a son to inherit from her, he would not inherit the property, as her father bequeathed it only to his heirs, not to the heirs of his heirs. And that is not so, as if his daughter had a son, he would certainly inherit; and this is the reason the husband does not inherit: Because the inheritance is considered property due to the daughter, as she did not own it during her lifetime, and a husband does not take in inheritance property due to his wife as he does the property she possessed.

A bit confusing. What do we know? Reuben is about to die and leaves all he owns to his grandmother Sarah on the condition that, when she dies, it goes to HIS heirs, not split up amongst all those who would inherit from his mother. He has a daughter, Rebecca, who would have inherited what her father left to his grandmother (her great-grandmother) but she died before her great-grandmother, so Rav Huna says, the son-in-law gets the inheritance, while Rav Anan says he doesn’t.

Sephardic manuscripts help us to tease out the correct ruling as they have a slightly different reading. They say the man gave his grandmother a gift on the condition that, when she dies, the money will go to her descendants, not as an inheritance, but as a gift from him!

So, the son-in-law has no claim to the gift.

The question is – who does?

Different versions of the same story can help us figure out what’s really happening and what was the intention of the original writer. Aren’t I lucky that I can read Rudyard Kipling and see what the end of the story is for the Jungle Book? And aren’t we lucky that we have Sephardi and Ga’onic versions of the Talmud?

Bava Batra 124

I used to take a dance class. I love to dance and love choreography. It’s so cool when you are part of a group all dancing in unison. I have a very vivid memory of a day in class, I hadn’t been in a long time but they played a song I knew and I was doing the choreography, but the rest of the class was doing a different move. I thought to myself that they were all wrong. That’s when the teachers said, “If you’re doing one move and everyone else is doing something else, you might be the one who is wrong.”

That came back to me as I read today’s daf where there is a debate about if a judge can follow Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling, even though the rest of the rabbis disagree.

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Ḥiyya is uncertain as to whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies specifically to a dispute with one other tanna but not to a dispute with several of his colleagues, or whether the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in his disputes with his colleague applies even to a dispute with several of his colleagues, as in this case, where the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

When it’s just one person who disagrees, you might still be right. In this case, when it’s one against Yehuda HaNasi, the prince wins. But, when it’s everyone who is disagreeing with you? Maybe it’s you who is wrong. Just maybe.

Bava Batra 123

One of the more scandalous scenes in Genesis makes it’s appearance on the daf today. Jacob fell in love with Rachel and worked for her father Laban for 7 years for her hand. Then, when he finally marries his veiled bride, he awakes only to find he has married her older sister! How could this have happened. Wouldn’t both Rachel and Leah have to have known for Laban to pull this off? Today, we get a rabbinic take on what really went down.

Jacob said to Rachel: Will you marry me? Rachel said to him: Yes, but my father is a deceitful person, and you cannot defeat him. Jacob said to her: What is his method of deceit of which I need be aware? Rachel said to him: I have a sister who is older than me, and he will not marry me off before he marries her off, even if he promises that he will do so. Jacob said to her: I am his brother, i.e., equal, in deceit, and he will not be able to deceive me. That is why Jacob said that he was “her father’s brother.” Rachel said to him: But is it permitted for the righteous to act deceitfully? Jacob answered her: Yes, in certain circumstances. As the verse states concerning God: “With the pure You show Yourself pure; and with the crooked You show Yourself subtle” (II Samuel 22:27). Therefore, to counter Laban’s deceit, Jacob gave Rachel secret signs to prove to him that she was the one marrying him.

Okay! So, Rachel knew her father would trick Jacob. But Jacob insists, you can’t trick a trickster. He gives her secret signals she can give to him so he will know if he is, in fact, marrying Rachel and not her sister. So, what goes wrong?

Laban did in fact attempt to have Jacob marry Leah instead of marrying Rachel. When Laban’s associates were bringing Leah up to the wedding canopy to marry Jacob, Rachel thought: Now my sister will be humiliated when Jacob discovers that she is the one marrying him. Therefore, Rachel gave the signs to Leah. And this is as it is written: “And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah” (Genesis 29:25). This verse is difficult, as by inference, should one derive that until now she was not Leah? Rather, through the signs that Jacob gave to Rachel and that she gave to Leah, he did not know it was she until that moment. This is the modesty of Rachel to which Rabbi Yonatan was referring.

Rachel felt badly for her sister and did not want to humiliate her, so she gives up her true love . . . don’t worry too much, Rachel gets to marry him and he very clearly favors her and then her children.

But we do get a little gem in that sisterly love. That sisterly love might be the strongest love of all. (Or maybe it is when your husband marries 4 women . . . but that’s another story)