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

Bava Batra 117

A beautiful statement on the daf today.

In our conversation about inheritance, the daf finally turns to the most important inheritance of them all, the mass inheritance that happened when the Jewish people, children of the slaves, finally enter the land of Israel. There are two verses that tell us how the land will be divided. One says according to the names of the tribes (based on ancestors) while the other says “unto these” (meaning based on who is present). The daf tries to reckon these two verses – and the result is a beautiful teaching.

Rabbi Yonatan says: Eretz Yisrael was divided among those who entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance” (Numbers 26:53). But how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “According to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit” (Numbers 26:55)?

Here is our gem:

This teaches that this inheritance is different from all other inheritances in the world, for in all other inheritances in the world, the living inherit from the dead, but here, the dead inherit from the living.

Gorgeous. The dead inherit from the living.

Technically speaking this means that the portions of land received by those who entered Israel were transferred to their fathers who left Egypt, and then inherited by the current generation.

But metaphorically . . .

It’s so powerful to fulfill a family dream. To think that maybe, something you have accomplished would make your ancestors proud. That they inherit merit from what you have done.

And – when we say kaddish for someone who passed, or give tzedakah or do a mitzvah in their memory – they’re given credit for the mitzvah we have done. We help their souls to ascend.

May we be good descendants and may our ancestors inherit from us.

Bava Batra 116

Finally, in all this talk of inheritance after death we get some emotion . . . two horrible sad scenes . . . but the rabbis bring them to figure out a halakhah (law), and not to show compassion.

They want to determine the meaning of: “God shall hear, and humble them, even He that is enthroned of old, Selah; those that have no exchange, and fear not God” (Psalms 55:20). Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi each interpret the verse in a different manner. One says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, as he does not leave anyone to serve in exchange, i.e., as a replacement, for him; and one says that this is a reference to anyone who does not leave behind a student to serve in exchange for him.

Who is this verse referring to? Who is it who does not have an “exchange?” One rabbis says it means he does not have a son while the other says it means he does not have a student. But who said which?

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student, for Rabbi Yoḥanan, whose ten sons died in his lifetime, said to those he would console: This is the bone of my tenth son, to encourage them not to succumb to their sorrow.

Horrific scene #1. Rabbi Yohanan has lost, not one, but all ten of his sons. How horrific. Even more heartbreaking, he walks around with one of the bones of his tenth son with him at all times. How heartbreaking.

And yet, the rabbis bring this fact, not to show empathy, but to argue that the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan knew that he would not leave any sons to inherit his property, then we should assume that he interpreted the verse as meaning that God is full of wrath toward one who does not leave behind a student (because he leaves behind students but not sons). As it concludes: The Gemara comments that it may be concluded that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who says that the verse is referring to one who does not leave behind a student.

But what about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? Should we then conclude that he says it refers to someone who does not leave behind a son?

The Gemara asks: But this cannot be, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would not go to a house of mourning [bei tamya] to console the bereaved so as not to interrupt his studies, except to the house of one who died without any sons.

So, this rabbi would not disrupt his studies, even when someone died . . . unless it was for someone who died without leaving a son behind.

Again, our rabbis do not remark on the compassion this man showed for those who died without having children. The son is the person required by Jewish law to say kaddish for his father when he dies. He might even be referred to as his father’s “kaddish.” So, if someone died without a person to say kaddish for them, then Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would go and say kaddish for him. It’s both beautiful and disturbing. Beautiful because he is fulfilling a need that no one else is filling. Disturbing that this man sits and studies Torah all day – and doesn’t usually live out the mitzvot if it will disrupt his studies.

The whole point of studying Torah is to live Torah. We learn on the daf, that sometimes even the most learned of sages miss the point entirely.

Bava Batra 115

Today’s daf outlines the order of inheritance (Steinsaltz helps to clarify):

sons of the deceased or the sons’ descendants
daughters of the deceased or the daughters’ descendants
brothers of the deceased or the brothers’ descendants
the father of the deceased
the father of the deceased’s brothers.

Seems clear enough, until you get to a situation, like on the daf, where a father has a son and a daughter, but the son passes before the father but not before fathering a daughter of his own. Now, if you follow the above formula – the man’s granddaughter (the daughter of the son) would inherit when he passes while the deceased’s daughter would get nothing – even though she is the closer relative!

This question results in a halakhic showdown between the Sages and the Sadducees:

As the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased.

So, aunt and granddaughter alike! Not so fast Sadducees!

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai joined them to discuss their ruling, and said to them: Imbeciles, from where do you derive this ruling?

You idiots! Where is this coming from?

And there was no person that answered him anything, except for one old man who was chattering at him and saying that it is an a fortiori inference: And just as a daughter of the deceased’s son, who comes to claim her inheritance from her grandfather by virtue of his son, inherits her grandfather’s property, so too, with regard to the deceased’s own daughter, who comes to inherit by virtue of the deceased, all the more so is it not clear that she should inherit his property?

What comes next? A biblical example of inbreeding! (Who said Talmud is boring?)

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai recited this verse about him: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah” (Genesis 36:20), and it is written: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah” (Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. Rather, this teaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah, so that he was both Anah’s father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir’s sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees’ assertion.

Ummm, cool? Strange to have a forbidden relationship prove a point. But the Sages take it as a win:

The Sadducee’s a fortiori inference is thereby disproved. The Gemara concludes: And since the Sadducees had no counterargument, the Sages were victorious over them, and they established that day, the twenty-fourth of Tevet, as a minor festival to celebrate the establishment of the halakha in accordance with the opinion of the Sages.

I want to throw parties when I win arguments . . . or for anything really.

Oct. 18th will be a minor festival wherein a read and interpreted a page of Talmud!

Bava Batra 114

Is it okay to change your mind?

Our daf discusses when it is that someone can change their mind about a deal and reneg on their offer.

With regard to a transaction, until when may one of the parties renege on the transaction? Rabba says: As long as they are seated in the same location they may renege on the transaction. Rav Yosef says: As long as they are dealing with that matter, i.e., they are still discussing that transaction, they may renege on it.

So, if you’re still at the table and still talking about the terms of the negotiation, you can still back out. But if the topic has moved on – Rav Yosef says you’ve lost your chance. Rabba says, as long as your still at the table you can renege.

It makes me think of how, sometimes a conversation can move on but you (or I) are still replaying an earlier point in your head. This reminds us that we better jump in there and stay present, at lest when making a negotiation.

But for now, you can let your mind wander.

Bava Batra 113

I remember, as an early teen, my mom wanted me to learn to play golf. She told me that, in business, a lot of deals are made on the golf course. If we were to believe television, then a lot of business deals are done at strip clubs, and at night (my mom did not encourage that). According to our daf, business deals should only be done during the light of day.

Rabba bar Ḥanina taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: “Then it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has” (Deuteronomy 21:16). The addition of the phrase “on the day” teaches that it is specifically during the day that you may distribute inheritances, but you may not distribute inheritances at night. Abaye said to him: That cannot be the halakha, as, if that is so, it ought to be that only one who dies during the day is the one from whom his children inherit, but with regard to one who dies at night, his children do not inherit from him, and this is not the case.

So, if someone dies, you can’t inherit from them at night – only during the day. This seems to not make any sense. But hen we get this ruling:

Abaye continues: And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: In a case where there were three men who entered a room to visit a sick person and the sick person desired to write a will in order to distribute his property following his death, if the visitors wish to do so they may write his will and sign it as witnesses. . . And Rav Ḥisda says: This halakha was taught only in a case where the three came to visit him during the day, but if they came at night, even if three men came to visit the sick person, they may write the will and sign it as witnesses but they may not act in judgment.

What we learn is that anything legal has to be done in the light of day. Just as a person cannot come into a dying man’s room at night and change their will without the knowledge of their heirs – so too ALL business dealings should be done in the light of day and in a court of law.

To go back to the beginning – I don’t know if business deals are really done at strip clubs or if it’s a TV phenomenon so they can have naked women in the show for no real reason. But the daf would have a problem with that . . . okay, more than one problem. But, the golf course may still be a possibility, but that handshake on the 4th hole is still not as good as a legally binding document that will stand up in a court of law.

Bava Batra 112

We continue to learn about inheritance. On today’s daf, the rabbis are trying to find proof that a husband inherits property from his wife.

The Gemara points to a passage in the book of Joshua 24:33, “Eleazar son of Aaron also died, and they buried him on the hill of his son Phinehas, which had been assigned to him in the hill country of Ephraim.”

What’s the problem? Elazar HaKohen, was buried in the land of his son, Pineḥas. So, if land is only inherited from father to son, how is it possible that Pineḥas had land that did not belong to his father? It must be that Pineḥas married someone from a different tribe, and he inherited the land from her.

Abaye objects to this argument:

Abaye said to him: You cannot say that Pinehas purchased the land where he buried his father, as if so, the field would return to its original owner in the Jubilee Year (see Leviticus, chapter 25), and it would be found that this righteous man, i.e., Elazar, is buried in a grave in land that is not his.

No way he would bury his dad in land that will be returned to another tribe in the Jubilee year! So, this is proof that the land was inherited.

This leaves the question of can land be purchased for burial. Yes, in fact, you have to own the land used for the burial plot, and it cannot be land that will eventually be returned.

The Ḥatam Sofer teaches that, from this daf we learn that it is required for every Jewish person to buy a burial plot so that we will not be buried in land that does not belong to us.

I will also say that, if you pre-purchase burial plots, they are significantly cheaper then needing them in the moment. It’s morbid – but it’s also a halakah.

Bava Batra 111

More inheritance rules. And more feminism! … that gets rejected.

Through some a fortiori reference the Gemara says that since both sons and daughters inherit their mothers, the sons should have priority in inheriting just as they do when their father passes away.

Boo. But it’s not just me who thinks so.

Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav argues that sons and daughters should share equally in the mother’s estate. Yay another feminist!

Then we see that a bunch of other rabbis agree and want to follow Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav’s ruling, and the Jerusalem Talmud when says that the Babylonian Sages had a tradition that followed his teaching.

Yay! So…women’s equality? Nope.

The halakha follows the other opinion, and boys inherit first with both the father and mother’s estate.

Bava Batra 110

The fight for women’s rights . . . on the daf! And Rav Pappa is the one fighting for daughters everywhere:

The inheritance law says Sons with regard to their father. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha that sons inherit the entire estate and daughters do not receive a share along with them? As it is written: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall pass his inheritance to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The reason the inheritance would be passed to a daughter is that he has no son, but if he has a son, the son takes precedence.

But Rav Pappa will have none of this!

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why not say the following: If there is only a son, let the son inherit the father’s estate; if there is only a daughter, let the daughter inherit the father’s estate and if there is both a son and a daughter… this one should not inherit all of the estate, and that one should not inherit all of the estate, but they should inherit it in equal portions to one another.

Yes! Rav Pappa – feminist hero standing up to Abaye. But he doesn’t stop there, the rest of the daf arguments are made as to why a son is a “closer” relation than a daughter – and each argument gets knocked down.

Did feminism win? No. But each blow has helped the fight to establish a more equal and just world. So, thanks Rav Pappa, for giving some good punches to wound the patriarchy.

Bava Batra 109

The daf is discussing inheritance and when you inherit from the mothers side verses the fathers side when we get this juicy aside from the Book of Judges. I will paste it and then break it down a bit.

But it is written in the episode of Micah forming an idol to be worshipped: “And there was a young man of Bethlehem in Judah of the family of Judah who was a Levite, and he sojourned there” (Judges 17:7). The Gemara explains the difficulty: This matter itself is difficult. You said: “Who was a Levite,” as apparently he came from the tribe of Levi, but the verse says: “Of the family of Judah,” so apparently he came from the tribe of Judah. Rather, is it not that his father was from the tribe of Levi and his mother was from the tribe of Judah, and yet the verse says that he was: “Of the family of Judah”? This appears to prove that one’s mother’s family is also called his family. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said in response: No, the verse speaks of a man whose name was Levi, but his father was of the tribe of Judah. The Gemara asks: If that is so, how is that which Micah said when that man agreed to serve as his priest: “Now I know that the Lord will do me good, seeing that I have a Levite as my priest” (Judges 17:13), understood? It is understood only if he was an actual Levite, not if he was from the tribe of Judah and named Levi. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan responded: Yes, it is understood. Micah understood the fact that a man whose name is Levi happened upon him as an auspicious sign.

According to the story at the end of Judges, during a period when “there was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” a guy named Micha (not to be confused with the prophet Micah) steels money from his mom, who then gives it to a “priest” to create an idol. Then a Levite from Bethlehem in Judah in comes and Micha is happy to have this Levite serve as priest in his temple.

Here’s where the daf steps in. If this guy is a Levite, then he is from the tribe of Levi! But, the text identifies him as being from the tribe of Judah as well! So, the logical conclusion is that one parent is from Levi and the other Judah. But, Rava is having none of this and says his name was LEvi but his tribe is Judah.

The Gemara then rejects this arguing that the text states clearly he is a Levite. But is it so that his name was indeed Levi; but wasn’t Jonathan his name, as it is stated: “And Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Manasseh, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites” (Judges 18:30)

But there is another difficulty! But is it so that he was the son of Manasseh; but wasn’t he the son of Moses, as it is written: “The sons of Moses: Gershom and Eliezer” (I Chronicles 23:15)?

If this guy was a Levite, he would be the grandson of Moses (yes – that Moses!) – but the text calls him “son of Menasseh. Why? Well, Menashe was an evil king of Judea – and this guy is acting wickedly as well. So, we connect him to the evil king, instead of Moses.

Wow! Drama. The gems? Besides the family drama and even Moses having wicked offspring?

That even the Torah recounts bad people who seem to make it to high places and have “successful” lives. But, they are remembered for the wicked they did. Money can give us power, but it’s up to us to be good people. And it’s the good people we remember fondly and teach others about.

Bava Batra 108

I read the daf today after making sure my books are prepared for Yom Kippur. So, it fits to read this daf after reading Unataneh Tokef and thinking of all the terrible losses we have experienced.

Our daf talks about – who inherits from who when someone dies.

The Gemara begins by clarifying the order of the list in the mishna. What is different, i.e., what is the reason, that the mishna teaches: A father with regard to his sons, as the first example? Let it teach: Sons with regard to their father, as the first example. The Gemara explains why this would be preferable: One reason is that we do not want to begin with a calamity, as the death of a son during his father’s lifetime is a calamity…

I buried a 99.5 year old woman this morning. Her 4 kids, 8 grandkids, and 11 great grandchildren were all there. That is how it’s supposed to be.

But it doesn’t always happen that way.

This year, we have seen too many parents bury their kids. Too many more kids who have been taken hostage. Recently, loss of life and destruction by water, and in Israel, by fire.

It’s a calamity. It’s not how it’s supposed to be.

And still, even then, we inherit from them. The good in them lives in through us.