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

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.

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.