Bava Batra 154: סִימָנִין עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 154

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Gemara relates a story that occurred in Bnei Brak, where someone who inherited property from his father sold it and died soon afterwards. Family members then claimed in court that the person who sold the property was underage at the time that it was sold, and that the sale should be cancelled.

Rabbi Akiva heard the case together with the suggestion that the body be exhumed in order to ascertain whether he had reached maturity before he died. Rabbi Akiva ruled that he could not allow for nivul ha-met – desecration of the dead – in such a case; furthermore, he argued that the physical condition of the body changes after death, so that examining the body would not offer a definitive clarification of the situation.

We explore the Halachic ramifications of autopsies a a look at the talmud fro a post modern literary (Bakhtin) perspective.

Bava Batra 153: עֲלֵיהֶן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁבָּרִיא הָיָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 153

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (146b), the unique power of the gift of a shekhiv mera – someone on his death bed – to take effect even without a formal kiny­an, only works if the dying man bequeaths all of his possessions while on his death bed. This clarifies to us that he is only distributing his wealth because he assumes that he has no more need for physical possessions.

Therefore, in the event that the dying man recovers, all of these presents must be returned, since they were given under a mistaken impression.

A new mishnah informs us that If there was no wording in the present document to indicate that he was a shechiv mei’ra, and he claims he was while the recipients claim he was not, he must bring proof that he was a shechiv mei’ra; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The Chachamim say: One who takes away money from his friend must bring proof. [In this case, this refers to the people who wish to enforce the presents.]

i.e. proof of ill health is required. The rabbis disagree, believing that the recipients must provide proof.

We review the scholarship on the deathbed scene of Socrates and the metaphor of greek vs rabbinic approaches to truth through narratives in both talmud and Greek classics, in Boyarin’s "Socrates and the fat Rabbis.”

Bava Batra 152: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ קִנְיָן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 152

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a seriously ill person drafted a sickbed will in which he distributed all his property, it takes effect after his death, and no further action is needed. What happens if he also performed a symbolic acquisition and wrote about it in his will?

Rav says that he is "riding on two steeds," giving his will both the power of a sickbed bequest and of the gift of a healthy person. Shmuel, however, says that he may have intended the acquisition to take effect after his death, and gifts cannot be given after death.

we continue to explore the halachic status of terminally ill as well as Death, Burial, and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity by Jon Davies and Jung’s attitudes to death.

Bava Batra 151: מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע בְּמִקְצָת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 151

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Various stories are brought regarding women on their deathbed who gave property to one son and then changed their minds. The rabbis rule debated what the ruling should be – can one change one’s mind or once one gives away all their possessions and subsequently dies, the first statement they made is valid?

The Gemara relates that Rav Amram Chasida's mother had many documents attesting to various loans that were owed to her. On her deathbed, she gave instructions that they should all be given to Rav Amram as a gift. After her death, Rav Amram's brothers came before Rav Nachman and disputed his ownership of the debts on the grounds that he never made a proper act of Kinyan on the documents.

We present an AN ANALYSIS OF JEWISH AND COMMON LAW DOCTRINES RELATED TO THE EFFECTS OF STRESS ON SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENTS

by Martin Hirschprung…comparing deathbed requests and therapeutic exceptions to informed consent.

Bava Batra 150: חֲמִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיִּכְתְּבוּ כָּל נִכְסֵיהֶם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 150

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: There are five types of gifts to which specific halakhot apply, but the halakhot do not apply until the owners write a deed granting all of their property to another without reserving anything for themselves, and they are as follows: The gift of a person on his deathbed, a gift to one’s Canaanite slave, a gift to one’s wife, a gift to one’s sons, and the gift of a woman who shelters her property from her prospective husband by transferring her property to another before her marriage. In this latter case the Sages instituted that if her husband dies or divorces her she can reclaim the property.

We explore the economic and symbolic values that accrue to the bed, bedding, and the bedroom in late medieval England, as described in wills and household accounts, and as evoked in literary and artistic imagery, those associated with birth and inheritance and also those portrayed in images of death. “Childbed” and “deathbed” are terms that frame the human lifecycle. They also invoke the most important item of furniture in the premodern household.

Bava Batra 149: הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 149

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned, matnat shekhiv mera is a present given by an individual who is on his death bed. Unlike other examples of property transfer where the most basic requirement demands that a formal kinyan – an act of transfer – take place, in the case of matnat shekhiv mera the Sages ruled that no such kinyan is necessary.

This rule was established in order to ease the concerns that rest on a dying person who wants to be sure that his will is carried out prior to his death. Nevertheless, there are restrictions to this unique rule of matnat shekhiv mera; according to the Mishna (146b), this gift only works if the dying man bequeaths all of his possessions while on his death bed.

One case brought for adjudication was that of 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.

We explore the status of such converts and their rights of inheritance.

Bava Batra 148: כֹּל לְגַבֵּי נַפְשֵׁיהּ – בְּעַיִן יָפָה מְשַׁיֵּיר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 148

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned, matnat shekhiv mera is a present given by an individual who is on his death bed. Unlike other examples of property transfer where the most basic requirement demands that a formal kinyan – an act of transfer – take place, in the case of matnat shekhiv mera the Sages ruled that no such kinyan is necessary.

The power of the words of a dying man are taken seriously and have legal ramifications.

We explore the power of the dying man’s words through history.

Bava Batra 147: חָלָה חִזְקִיָּהוּ לָמוּת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 147

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf brings a series of amora’im, all of whom claim that the law of matnat shekhiv mera is of biblical origin.

Among the sources that are offered to support this claim are two stories in navi –

When King Ḥizkiyahu was on his deathbed, the navi Yeshayahu told him that he was destined to die and suggested to him that he command his house (see II Melakhim 20:1).

When Aḥitophel realized that his support of Avshalom’s rebellion against King David was doomed to failure, he returned home, commanded his house, and committed suicide.

In contrast, Rava quotes Rav Naḥman as teaching that the law of matnat shekhiv mera is of rabbinic origin, shema titraf da’ato alav – lest he become insane.

We explore the history and textual problems of dating King Hezekiah’s reign.

Bava Batra 146: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 146

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We learn in a new Mishna:

When a man gives his land away on his death bed and he in fact survives, those gifts are only returned if he left no land for himself. In such a case, it is clear that his wishes were to be effected only if he were to die.

The Gemara takes issue with this - how might we assume a person’s intentions? Ever?

We explore deathbed scenes, typology and underlying messages in biblical and rabbinic type scenes.

Bava Batra 145: עַתִּיר נִכְסִין עַתִּיר פּוּמְבֵּי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 145

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Citing a verse from proverbs “All the days of the poor are terrible; and for the good-hearted it is always a feast” (Proverbs 15:15)?

Reb Zeira interprets aas follows:

“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.

Rava says: The opposite is true. What is the meaning of that which is written (Ecclesiastes 10:9):

“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.

We explore the biblical reference and its implications.

Bava Batra 144: שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 144

To download, click/tap here: PDF

How are estate profits divided if only some or one of the heirs invested either time or money in improving it? What are the factors that affect the law? What about doctor bills for one of the heirs – are they paid for from the sick person’s share or from everyone’s?

Steinsaltz "How much of what happens to us is in our hands, and how much is in God’s hands?

This question is the crux of a discussion about how much brothers will be responsible for each other’s illnesses.

The Mishna on our daf teaches that brothers who are being supported by their father’s estate will share equally in profits or losses made by one of the brothers who was pressed into imperial service, since he was chosen as the representative from the family. If one of the brothers becomes ill and must pay medical bills, he is responsible to pay that out of his own pocket.”

We learn a new Mishna regarding shushvinus, the custom of bringing gifts to a groom knowing that the gift-giving will be reciprocated in the future. If the father sent shushvinus with some of the sons and then the groom returned the shushvinus after the father died, do all sons share them?

We examine the role of the shushvinin.

Bava Batra 143: וּבְנֵי דָּן – חֻשִׁים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 143

To download, click/tap here: PDF

There was a certain man who said to those surrounding him: I leave my property to my sons, and he had a son and a grandson, i.e., his son’s son.

The question was raised: Do people call a grandson a son, or do they not?

Does a person call his son – “sons,” or perhaps he doesn’t, and he wanted to include his daughter?

Abaye says: We can bring a proof from the verse, “And the sons of Dan were Chushim” Gen 46:23 (even though there is only one son listed). Rava says: Perhaps the meaning of this verse is as taught in the house of Chizkiyah, that his (Dan’s) sons were many like bundles of reeds?

We explore the literary and midrashic character of Chushim in rabbinic and pseudo Jonathan.

Bava Batra 142: עוּבָּר לָא קָנֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 142

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The concept of inheritance arises in a number of contexts in the Torah, most prominently in Parashat Pinchas. It is also the central topic of the eighth chapter of Massekhet Bava Batra, Yesh Nochalin. Naturally, the discussion of the laws of inheritance focuses largely on the financial matters at issue among the heirs, leading to the discussion and clarification of a number of fundamental questions regarding monetary law. For that reason, chapter Yesh Nochalin has an important place in the world of Choshen Mishpat.

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, from the Mishna, a gift can be given to an unborn child.

Nevertheless, the Gemara on our daf clearly rules that ha-mezakeh le-ubar lo kanah – that when someone attempts to give a gift to an unborn child – the kinyan, the act of ownership – does not take effect.

We explore the rights and legal status of the fetus.

Bava Batra 141: מִצְוָה לָזוּן אֶת הַבָּנוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 141

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that for him a daughter is preferable to a son? But this seems to contradict what Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him, as it is stated:

“If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass [veha’avartem] to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The term ha’avara means nothing other than wrath.

Citing Reb Yehudah’s interpretation of Gen 24:1:

“And Abraham was old, well stricken in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham with everything [bakkol]”

Rabbi Meir says: The blessing was that he did not have a daughter.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The blessing was that he had a daughter, and her name was Bakkol. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda understands the birth of a daughter to be a blessing.

We explore the midrashim regarding Avraham.

Bava Batra 140: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרוּבִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 140

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If someone died and left sons and daughters, when there are a lot of possessions in the estate, the sons should inherit and the daughters should be supported. If there are very few possessions, the daughters should be supported and the sons should go begging.

The Mishna has told us that Admon wonders why should he lose out just because he is male and must learn Torah?

We explore more inheritance laws as well as the Islamic attitudes to inheritance.

Bava Batra 139: בַּעַל – שַׁוְּיוּהוּ רַבָּנַן כְּיוֹרֵשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 139

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When a woman passes away and her husband inherits her property, do we view him as someone who purchased the property or someone who inherited the property? The difference presented by the Gemara between these two possibilities is whether someone who was owed money by the wife who passed away can collect. A milveh al peh – a loan made with a verbal agreement – collects from the estate, but not from someone who purchased property.

We continue our historical analysis of the family and inheritance in Ancient Rome.

Bava Batra 138: דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קְרוֹבָה אֵצֶל בְּנוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 138

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In continuation of the case discussed in the previous mishna of a father who wrote a document granting his property to his son but reserved the rights to the produce during his lifetime, the mishna states that the father may detach produce from the land and feed the produce to whomever he wishes, and what he left detached at the time of his death belongs to all the father’s heirs, not only to this son.

We explore unwanted gifts in Ancient Greece as well as the fraught father son relationship in the work of the modern poet and father of the mens movement, Robert Bly.

Bava Batra 137: אֶתְרוֹג זֶה נָתוּן לְךָ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 137

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf turns to the timing of a receiving a gift. If one gives a gift on his deathbed, is the gift acquired immediately or must acquisition wait until after the one on his deathbed has actually died? And would acquisition take place at the moment of death (Abaye) or after death (Rava)? This argument is compared with a husband who gives his wife a get with the condition that he dies first. In such a case, the get is not valid.

What if a person gives another person an etrog as a gift, and specifies that the etrog belongs to someone else after the receiver dies? If the etrog cannot be used until after a person has died, then the etrog is not being used for its purpose and thus its owner has transgressed.

As part of this discussion, the rabbis agree that it is valid to give a gift and have it used (for example the etrog used for its mitzvah) and then return it.

We return to the beautiful esrog and the importance of the mitzvah to such luminaries like Rebbe nachman as well as S Y Agnon.

Bava Batra 136: בְּהַקְנָאָה, מַהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 136

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf describes a person who writes to his sons that he is giving them his property “from today and after my death.” What he accomplishes with this is that the property will transfer at that time according to his wishes, but until that time, he will be able to use the property.

The Gemara questions this ruling, pointing out that with regard to gittin – divorce law – a get that says “from today and after my death” will be viewed as a questionable get.

We compare the two segues as well as examine father son relationships in Ancient Room and dark legal frame of Patria Potestas.

Bava Batra 135: diathéké Διαθήκη

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 135

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a person dies and a sickbed will is found tied to his thigh, so that there is no suspicion of forgery, the will still has no legal validity.

A new Mishna teaches that if a brother dies with documents tied to his thigh regarding gifts to be given after one's death, they should be ignored.

If the brother states that he wishes to give whatever is written in the note to someone, it is permitted even if that line of inheritance is not accepted. A healthy person's gift, however, might say: from today and after I die.

The rabbis are unclear about whether or not something can be a gift if it says, "from now". The rabbis continue to argue about whether or not we believe and follow the instructions that accompany a gift.

We explore the diatheke in and around the first 3 centuries including Dead Sea Scrolls.