Bava Batra 124: ״פִּי שְׁנַיִם״

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 124

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned, the Torah commands (see Devarim 21:15-17) that the firstborn son will receive a double portion of the estate left by his father at the time of his death. What if the estate grows after the father’s death, but before the children have had time to divide it up into the shares that they will receive? Will the firstborn get a double portion in those additional profits?

We explore the concept of firstborn and primogeniture and its repudiation in the writings of Adam Smith and the brith of the republic.

Bava Batra 123: וּמַאי צְנִיעוּת הָיְתָה בָּהּ בְּרָחֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 123

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara discusses the double portion of the firstborn. There could be a number of ways to actualize a double portion. The considerations might be different if there were five brothers or only two brothers involved in the inheritance.

The rabbis consider the experiences of our forefathers - for example, Joseph. Although he was not the firstborn son, he was offered the birthright, which included all of the rights of the firstborn son. Many potential prooftext are offered to demonstrate that Joseph's portion was double the property received by one of the inheritors (his brothers).

We ask why Joseph received his brother's birthright. Is it because Joseph gave so much to his father Jacob that Jacob felt he must repay Joseph in this way? Is it because of Reuven's earlier sin that Jacob gave the double portion to Joseph?

Rabbi Yonatan tells us Leah's son with Jacob should have been given the birthright.

But Rachel's resulting patience and humility warranted Joseph receiving Jacob's birthright.

We explore the characters of these biblical figures.

Bava Batra 122: אֶחָד הַבֵּן וְאֶחָד הַבַּת לְנַחֲלָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 122

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna informs us:

The son and daughter are the same in inheritance (the Gemora will explain this statement).

However, the firstborn son inherits a double portion of the father’s possessions but not his mother’s possessions.

Daughters are supported from the father’s possessions but not from the mother’s possessions.

We explore the notion of Eretz Yisrael with Rav Judah Goldberg’s analysis.

Bava Batra 121: יוֹם שֶׁנִּתְּנוּ הֲרוּגֵי בֵיתָר לִקְבוּרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 121

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf brings the last Mishna in Massekhet Ta’anit, which closes with a discussion of two of the happiest days on the Jewish calendar – Yom Kippur and T”u b’Av, the 15th of Av, when the daughters of Jerusalem would go out to the dance in the vineyards in borrowed white clothing (so that girls who were poor would not be embarrassed), calling out to the young men suggesting that they choose wives from among them.

Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel as saying that it was the day that women who had inherited land were released from the restrictions limiting them to marry only members of their tribe.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana suggests that it was the day that the tribe of Binyamin was permitted to marry. According to the story at the end of Sefer Shofetim (see Chapter 21) wives needed to be found for the remnants of the tribe of Binyamin, which had almost been wiped out.

We explore the wonderful roots of this holiday.

Bava Batra 120: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד הוּתְּרוּ לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְכל הַשְּׁבָטִים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 120

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If the daughters of Tzlofchad got married so late, how did they have children? A miracle happened to them and it is compared to Yocheved giving birth to Moshe at an old age.

The gemara explains the whole chronology of the Yocheved narrative and how it is clear she was so old when Moshe was born. In telling the narrative, they also resolve other difficulties in the verses. The daughters of Tzlofchad are mentioned twice in a different order each time.

We explore the different genealogies of Menashe and the possible resolutions.

Bava Batra 119: שֶׁמְּגַלְגְּלִים זְכוּת עַל יְדֵי זַכַּאי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 119

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If the daughters of Tzlofchad got married so late, how did they have children? A miracle happened to them and it is compared to Yocheved giving birth to Moshe at an old age.

The gemara explains the whole chronology of the Yocheved narrative and how it is clear she was so old when Moshe was born. In telling the narrative, they also resolve other difficulties in the verses. The daughters of Tzlofchad are mentioned twice in a different order each time.

We explore the different genealogies of Menashe and the possible resolutions.

Bava Batra 118: מִתְלוֹנְנִין וַעֲדַת קֹרַח

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 118

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The baraita teaches that the protesters and the assembly of Korah did not possess a portion of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita: With regard to the spies, the protesters, and the assembly of Korah, Joshua and Caleb took their portions of the land? Apparently, the protesters and the assembly of Korah were assigned portions in Eretz Yisrael, which were then given to Joshua and Caleb.

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: One Sage, the tanna of the baraita quoted earlier, juxtaposes the protesters to the spies, teaching that just as the spies were assigned a portion of Eretz Yisrael, so were the protesters.

And one Sage, the tanna of the baraita quoted here, does not juxtapose the protesters to the spies. Although the spies were assigned a portion, the protesters were not.

The source for these exceptions stems from the argument made by the daughters of Zelopheḥad who were appealing to receive their father’s portion.

We explore the claim of these daughters and the episode of Korach as a challenge to the literary strata and redaction.

Bava Batra 117: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב נָטְלוּ חֶלְקָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 117

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The daughters of Tzelophchad took three portions of the inheritance of the Land of Israel. (1) the portion of their father, Tzelophchad, who was among those who left Egypt; (2) their father's portion among brothers in the estate of Chepher, his father; (3) an extra share in the estate of Chepher, to which their father was entitled because he was a firstborn.

Number (1) teaches that the Land of Israel was divided among those who left Egypt, even if they were not living at the time of the conquest of Israel; Number (2) teaches that the daughter of a son received a share even when her father's brothers are alive; Number (3) teaches that the Land of Israel is considered to have been in possession of those who left Egypt.

How was the Land of Israel divided up among the Children of Israel who arrived after the 40 year trek through the desert?

Two passages in the Torah appear to offer different versions of the method used for dividing the land –

The pasuk in Bamidbar (26:55) teaches that the land was divided according to “the name of the tribes of their fathers.”

Two pesukim before (Bamidbar 26:53) the Torah states that the land would be divided “among these…according to the number of names.”

Our Gemara quotes three different opinions about how to interpret these pesukim.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: to illustrate the point, I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To two brothers who were priests and who were in one town…

We explore his life and legacy and the use of parables to illustrate legal principles and even Kafka’s debt to midrasnhic parables!

Bava Batra 116: כּלֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַנִּיחַ תַּלְמִיד

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 116

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara focuses on how it has been determined that the daughter of a son will not inherit with her brothers. This was done after the war where few sons (b'nei Binyamin) survived; daughters would transfer their inheritances to other tribes if they married out of their tribe.

The Gemara relates that after the incident of Pilegesh b'Giv'ah when Shevet Binyamin was almost wiped out, a decree was established for Shevet Binyamin in order that its ancestral property remain in the ownership of the Shevet. The decree was that whenever there would be sons who are supposed to inherit from their father, along with a daughter of a deceased son, the daughter would not inherit.

This decree was made despite the Torah's law that a deceased son inherits from his father, and his daughter (if he had no son) subsequently inherits that portion of her grandfather's estate.

We explore the literary and historical drama behind the tragedy of pilegesh begivah in Judges 21.

Bava Batra 115: גְּמִירִי דְּלָא כָּלֵה שִׁבְטָא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 115

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to anyone who says that a daughter of the deceased should inherit the estate of her father along with the daughter of the son of the deceased, even if he is a prince of the Jewish people, one should not listen to him, as this is nothing other than an act of the Sadducees and runs counter to the ruling of the mishna that the descendants of a son inherit before a daughter.

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

Rabbi Yochana ben Zakkai then engages in a polemical exegesis including the verses:

“These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah” (Genesis 36:20), then contradictory :

“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.

We explore the character and midrashic descriptions of Anah and the inventions of fire and the mule.

Bava Batra 114: דְּאִשָּׁה אֶת בְּנָהּ, דּוּמְיָא דְּאִשָּׁה אֶת בַּעְלָהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 114

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The mishna teaches that a woman bequeaths to her son, her husband, and her maternal uncles, but she does not inherit from them. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? But it is already taught in the former clause: A man inherits from his mother and a maninherits from his wife.

bequeaths to her son is similar to that of a woman who bequeaths to her husband: Just aswith regard to a woman who bequeaths to her husband, the husband does not inheritproperty through his wife while he is in the grave, i.e., if a husband predeceases his wife, then his relatives, such as children from another marriage, do not inherit the wife’s property through him but rather the wife’s own relatives inherit her property, so too, the same halakha applies with regard to a woman who bequeaths to her son, that the son does not inherit property through his mother while he is in the grave in order to bequeath to his paternal brothers.

We explore the cultural history of matrilineal descent.

Bava Batra 113: שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְבַקֵּר אֶת הַחוֹלֶה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Bayta 113

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna listed the sons of a woman’s sister as ones who receive inheritance, but do not give inheritance. The Gemora cites a braisa that explains that only the sons are listed, but not daughters, to teach us that the sons preempt any daughters. Therefore, if a woman dies, and her sister has sons and daughters, only the sons receive the inheritance. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak explains that the verses that list the heirs are all joined with the letter vav – and (e.g., v’yarash osa – and he inherits it), to teach us that just as at the first degree of inheritance (children), sons preempt daughters, so in all degree of inheritance (e.g., siblings and their offspring), sons preempt daughters.

We explore the issue of women’s inheritance comparing Numbers and Deuteronomy and also looking at the Islamic law.

Bava Batra 112: פִּנְחָס דִּזְבַן מִיזְבָּן לָא מָצֵית

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 112

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Using a number of examples, the rabbis wish to establish that transfer might happen through the father or through the son.

Abaye responded: It cannot be said that Pinchas had bought the land, for, if so, it would follow that the field must be returned by Yovel, and it would emerge that the righteous man (Elozar ben Aharon) would be buried in a grave which was not his own.

The Nimukei Yosef writes that our Gemora teaches us that it is a lack of dignity for the deceased to be buried in a grave site owned by another.

The Chasam Sofer (Responsa Yoreh Deah 330) citing our Gemora as its source says that the prevalent custom is that everyone pays for his own grave.

We explore notions of biblical inheritance as well as Halachic aspects of yerusha.

Bava Batra 111: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבַּעַל יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 111

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We had understood that a husband inherits from his wife but that she does not inherit from him. Why would this be so? The rabbis decide that the "kinsmen" who receive the husband's inheritance are his blood kin and not his wife. Rava attempts to argue with the logic used in this proof. He states that words have been changed; letters moved. But the rabbis disagree.

We explore the 3 textual witnesses to the Rav Yannai story, learning how local Palestinian polemics influenced the subtle differences in those renditions (Yerushalmi and Lev Rabba) over the Bavli.

Bava Batra 110: לְעוֹלָם יַשְׂכִּיר אָדָם עַצְמוֹ לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 110

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In connection with the Gemara’s mention of Jonathan, who served as a priest for Micah, the Gemara quotes additional statements of the Sages concerning that episode.

Jonathan said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: A person should always hire himself out to idol worship and not require the help of people by receiving charity, and I took this position in order to avoid having to take charity.

The Gemara comments that this maxim was misunderstood by Yehonatan, for its true intent was that a person should accept work that is not what he ordinarily does (avoda she-zara lo) rather than accept charity. In support of this assertion the Gemara relates something that Rav once said to Rav Kahana – you should be willing to skin animals in the marketplace and get paid, and you should not say that it is below the dignity of an important person such as yourself.

We explore the life scholarship and tragic times of Isaac ben Jacob Canpanton (1360–1463) (Hebrew: יצחק קנפנטון). He lived in the period darkened by the outrages of Ferrand Martinez and Vicente Ferrer, when intellectual life and Talmudic erudition were on the decline among the Jews of Spain.

Campanton's disciples,( including Reb Yosef Caro!!) themselves outstanding figures of the expulsion generation, bequeathed this speculative method to their students in the yeshivot they founded throughout the Ottoman Empire. Another infamous student was Alfonso de Zamora .

There is disputed evidence that he betrayed ZARZA, SAMUEL IBN SENEH: who was burnt at the stake.

Bava Batra 109: ?וּמִשְׁפַּחַת אֵם אֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״מִשְׁפָּחָה״

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 109

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The rabbis wish to discuss inheritance guidelines as they were set out in yesterday's daf. Who is thought to be the first to inherit and why? What is meant by the word "family" in some of our texts? Why are wives not the first inheritors? When do women inherit and why? The rabbis provide proofs both through their texts and through their lines of questioning for the logic of the guidelines in our Mishna.

We explore the issue of matrilineal inheritance.

Bava Batra 108: דְּאַתְחוֹלֵי בְּפוּרְעֲנוּתָא לָא מַתְחֲלִינַן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 108

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new Perek begins with the following question regarding inheritance priorities:

A new Mishna teaches us that some people are permitted to inherit from and bequeath to others. Others are permitted only to bequeath to someone or to inherit from someone. One group of people are not permitted to inherit to or bequeath from anyone.

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 firstexample? 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; therefore, it would have been appropriate to begin with the example of sons inheriting from their father.

We explore the laws of inheritance.

Bava Batra 107: אַדַּאֲכַלְתְּ כַּפְנְיָיתָא בְּבָבֶל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 107

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: The seller accepts the place (outside of the field being sold) for the fence, a wide ditch and a narrow ditch. The Gemora cites a braisa: The wider ditch is placed on the outside (further away from the fence) and the narrow one is placed on the inside (outside the fence, but close to it), and both of them are made behind the fence in order that an animal should not jump over the fence.

The Gemora asks: Why don’t we just make the wide ditch, and there would be no need for the narrow one? The Gemora answers: Since it is wide, an animal might stand in it and jump.

We explore the fields and ditches of antiquity from Sumer to Egypt, from Palestine to the Ohio Valley.

Bava Batra 106: אַף כָּאן בְּגוֹרָל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 106

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemora discusses allocation of inheritance and splitting an estate:

The Gemora first cites a braisa, in which Rabbi Yosi says that when brothers split their inherited estate, once one of them received his share by lottery, all the brothers have taken possession of their portion.

Rabbi Elozar says this halachah is learned from the original division of Eretz Yisroel among the Jews. Just as they took ownership by lottery, so any division by lottery confers ownership to the participants.

We explore the legal status of lottery and the midah of Sodom.

Bava Batra 105: אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 105

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara asks: And does Shmuel actually agree with ben Nanas ? But doesn’t Shmuel say: Concerning the ruling of the Sages that the landlord and the tenant should divide the intercalated month between them, we are dealing with a case where the landlord came to collect the rent in the middle of the month.

Rather, it must be that Shmuel actually meant to say that this is the statement of ben Nanas, but he, Shmuel, does not agree with him that one should attend to the latter expression.

In fact, he is in agreement with the Sages who maintain that two contradictory expressions create a case of uncertainty.

We explore the world of Talmudic logic from jneusner to Jacobs to Levinas.