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.

Bava Batra 134: יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 134

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Continuing their conversation about inheritance that is given as a 'gift', the rabbis discuss a case where people claim that they will consecrate gifted property. The Sages decided that any gift that cannot be consecrated to the Temple is not a gift at all.

The braisa says that Hillel had eighty students. Thirty of them reached the level of Moshe, fitting to receive the Heavenly presence. Thirty of them reached the level of Yehoshua, fitting for Hashem to stop the sun in their merit.

Twenty reached the level of outstanding students. The greatest of them was Yonasan ben Uziel, while the lowest was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was fully versed in all aspects of Torah – Tanach, Mishnayos, Gemora (explanation of the Mishnayos), Halachos, derivations of halachos from verses, close inspection of the text of the Torah, enactments of the Sages, logical arguments, comparisons of halachos by similar language, astronomy, mathematical meanings of verses, parables, dialogues of sheidim (demons), trees, and angels, and large and small things.

We explore the life and works (Targum) of this famous convert.

Bava Batra 133: בֵּן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה נוֹהֵג כַּשּׁוּרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 133

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches us about the consequences of bequeathing inappropriately.

If one writes a document bequeathing his inheritance to a number of people and he leaves his sons with nothing, this is permitted to occur. However, such a person will be thought of negatively by the rabbis.

If he did this because his sons were behaving improperly, however, then this person is remembered positively.

We read of the story of Yosef ben Yoezer had a son who did not conduct himself in a proper manner and the design of the story raises a significant question regarding the decision to disinherit the son who does not conduct himself in a proper manner; the story demonstrates how the disinherited son turns out in the end to have conducted himself in proper manner.

Bava Batra 132: קֵרַחַת מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 132

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 3:7): If a man writes a document granting his property to his sons, and he wrote a document granting any amount of land to his wife, she has lost her right to receive payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara questions this: Because he wrote a document granting her any amount of land, she has lost her right to receive payment of her marriage contract? Why should this be?

Many comments in the writings of the Rishonim and Acharonim indicate that while it is true that deference of amoraim for tannaim in deciding Halacha is a rule, Amoraim cannot disagree with Tannaitic sources in a direct manner, they can interpret those sources by proposing certain ukimtot, which allows them to disagree with the fundamental law appearing in the Tannaitic sources.

We review the literature on generational conflict and authority in rabbinic sources.

Bava Batra 131: שְׁכִיב מְרַע

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 131

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz opines: "Strange as this may sound, there does not seem to be a clear source in the Torah obligating a father to support his children, although it is certainly a mitzva for him to do so. In fact, the Mishna in Ketubot (52b) that is quoted in our Gemara teaches that if an agreement to support the children was not clearly written into the ketuba nevertheless the husband’s estate will be forced to support them after his death, because it is a tenai beit din – it is a required condition of marriage."

Rava inquired: Did Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah state his halachah (that the Torah gave authority to a father to bequeath his estate to a particular son) by a healthy person as well?

The Gemora explains: Is it only regarding a deathly ill person, who is fit to bequeath immediately (for it is written: It shall be on the day that he bequeaths to his sons), that a father has that right, but not by a healthy person, or perhaps, it was stated even with regards to a healthy person?

We examine the laws of schechiv mera, a terminally ill person and the halachic gratuities allowed for in bequest.

Bava Batra 130: לֹא יוּכַל לְבַכֵּר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 130

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If one says, "Let so-and-so inherit me," where there is a daughter who will survive him, or if he says, "Let my daughter inherit me," where there is a son who will survive him - he has said nothing, that is, his words are not effective, since he made a stipulation contrary to what is written in the Torah.

However, if he increased the portion of one son among the other sons, or one daughter among the other daughters, or completely eliminated the portion of one son, leaving everything for the other sons, his words stand.

We explore deathbed bequests and other disputes in jewish history.

Bava Batra 129: כּל תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר כְּדִבּוּר דָּמֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 129

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna (126b) teaches that as long as he says that what he is doing is a gift it will work, even if he also says that he means it to be an inheritance. The Gemara on our daf explains that this will work in all cases where the statements are made tokh ke-dei dibbur – when they are said “in the same breath.”

We approach the letter vs the law “FOR THE LETTER KILLS, BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE”: from two perspectives that of Pauline Theology and that of Kabbalah.

Bava Batra 128: שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתַּמֵּא, וְנִסְתַּמֵּא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 128

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama concerning testimony: If one knewinformation that could serve as testimony about the boundary of another’s land before he became blind, and then he became blind, he is disqualified from bearing witness in a dispute as to the boundaries of that person’s properties.

And Shmuel said: He is fit to bear witness, as it is possible for him to determine the boundaries of the fields despite his blindness.

The Gemara then brings a Baraisa which teaches a rule that a witness is only allowed to testify if he was eligible for testimony at the moment he witnesses the event, as well as at the moment he actually testifies. If he is in a state of disqualification at either of these points, he may not testify.

We review Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s magisterial essay on blindness and Halacha as well as explore the notion of cortical blindness, a complex visual impairment that originates from damage to the brain's occipital cortex rather than the eyes themselves. This condition disrupts visual processing, leading to partial or complete loss of vision at times without the person being aware of it: and Visual agnosia a condition where individuals can see but cannot recognize or interpret visual information. This can manifest as difficulty recognizing faces, objects, or familiar places.

Bava Batra 127: זֶה בְּנִי בְּכוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 127

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The people of a town on a lake sent the following question to Shmuel: if we had known one son to be the bechor, and then the father stated that another son was the bechor, who gets the extra portion?

Shmuel answered that the two sons should grant each other right to representation, and between the two collect one extra portion, which they split.

The Gemora explains that Rabbi Yehudah says that a father is believed to identify a son as the bechor, even when we had known a different son to be the bechor, while the Sages say that a father is believed only when we had no prior knowledge who is the bechor.

We focus on the children of Asenath and Joseph :

Jacob says to Joseph, “God Almighty appeared to me ... in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’"

So, in fulfillment of the divine promise, Jacob "adopts" or "claims" his Egyptian grandkids:

"Now your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine.

Any children born to you after them will be yours ; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers"

In this story, the two sons of Joseph and Aseneth are grafted into this divinely promised "community of peoples." As such, they are granted an inheritance along with Joseph's brothers, and they become the heads of two tribes of Israel.

Who authored the aprocyphal book about Asenath and how did it serve the diaspora Jews in Alexandria?

Bava Batra 126: מַסֵּי רוּקֵּיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 126

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishnah informs us that if a father says, “So-and-so, my firstborn son, shall not receive a double portion, or, if he says, “So-and-so, my son, shall not inherit with his brothers (and then he died), he has said nothing, for he has made a condition against what is written in the Torah.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who came before Rabbi Ḥanina and said to him: I know that this man is a firstborn. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: From where do you know? He said to Rabbi Ḥanina: Because when people would come before his father to obtain a cure for their ailing eyes, he would say to them: Go to my son Shikhḥat, as he is a firstborn and his saliva heals this ailment.

We explore the history of spittle and the superstitions surrounding it to this day.

Bava Batra 125: מַאי סָבְתָּא?

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 125

To download, click/tap here: PDF

What rights does a person have to determine the ownership of an object after he has given it away?

Our Gemara tells the story of “grandma.” That is, someone announced that he was giving all of his money to his grandmother, stating that he did so with the proviso that after she died the money would go to his descendants rather than to the people who would inherit her.

We explore the definition of Savta (and Sabba!) as well as the archetype of “senex" in the writings of Jung and Hillman

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.