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

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.

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.