Bava Batra 160: אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי מִיַּתְּבָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 160

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes:

"Contracts are instruments that seal and clarify agreements. Such documents are never mentioned in the Torah – how are they viewed and regulated by Jewish law?

This question is the central issue dealt with in Perek Get Pashut, the tenth and final perek in Massekhet Bava Batra.

Although contracts are not mentioned in the Torah, there is a lengthy description of writing a contract in a poignant story related in Sefer Yirmiyahu (Chapter 32) where Yirmiyahu, who has been imprisoned for prophesying the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jewish people from their land, purchases a plot of land from his uncle, symbolizing the eventual return of the people from exile. Although the Gemara concludes that we cannot learn details of contract law from the story in Sefer Yirmiyahu, nevertheless we see that during First Temple times the rules that regulated written contracts were already established.

During the times of the Mishna , there were two types of contracts, ordinary ones and special ones that were called a shetar mekushar or a “tied-up document.”

We explore the laws of didim witness to a star and famous examples of forged documents in antiquity and the famous Moses Shapira scandal and dead sea scrolls.

Bava Batra 159: דִּלְמָא גְּזֵירַת מֶלֶךְ הִיא

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 159

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Why, according to Jewish law, will relatives be rejected as witnesses in a court of law?

Our Gemara raises this issue while attempting to clarify a case that the Talmud calls kasha she-be’dinei mamonot – one of the most difficult rulings in civil law. The case suggested by the Gemara as being one that is very difficult to understand is a situation where a person signs a legal document as a witness, and at a later time marries and becomes related to one of the people involved in the contract.

We explore differences between the bavli and Yerushalmi.

Bava Batra 158: אַוֵּירָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַחְכִּים

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 158

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new Mishna is a play on our previous Mishna. If a husband and wife - who has no children by this husband - are crushed by a house and we do not know who died first, there is a problem. The husband heirs will claim that she died first, leaving all of her property to him, and his inheritance will include her wealth. The wife's family will claim that the husband died first, and they are owed her ketubah and whatever property she brought into the marriage.

During the discussion of the mishnah the following outstanding comment was made:

When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he adopted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, whereas Rabba, in Babylonia, adopted the opinion stated by Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from this incident that the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise, as when I ascended to Eretz Yisrael I accepted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who was also from Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rabba, who remained in Babylonia, accepted my former opinion.

We explore the notion of Torat Eretz Yisrael and Rav Kook’s vision followed by a post modern analysis and rationalization of Galut torah by Omri Asscher.

Bava Batra 157: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 157

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We are introduced to a Mishna where a question is answered by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. If a son and a father - or a person standing to inherit and the person who is giving the inheritance - die together when a house collapses on them, we need to know who died first in order to know whether the son's wife and creditors will be paid what they are owed or whether the father's inheritors will split the inheritance.

Beit Shammai say that we split the inheritance, and the inheritors receive half while the son's wife and creditors receive half. Beit Hillel say that we leave the inheritance as it was according to chazaka, and the inheritors each receive their inheritance.

We explore the world of fathers and sons through the lens of a modern day American writer Arthur Miller.

Bava Batra 156: בלא קנין וכתיבה שלא תטרוף דעתו

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 156

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Someone who is seriously ill has the same laws as a healthy person, and his sickbed will is invalid. Rather, he must gift his possessions in the regular way, that is, with money, a document, or an act of ownership for land, and with pulling to oneself for movables - this is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Elazar disputes the principle discussed on the previous twenty pages that a seriously ill person can effect the transfer of his property.

Rabbi Eliezer says that if a seriously ill person gave his possessions away orally on Sabbath, his words are upheld, since on Sabbath he may not write. Rabbi Eliezer is a third opinion. Rabbi Yehoshua says that if he can distribute his possession orally on Sabbath, then all the more so he can do it on weekdays. Rabbi Yehoshua agrees with the previous twenty pages.

We explore the issue of kinyan and shabbat leniency for terminally ill person’s peace of mind and a specific analysis of the importance of morale in removing fallen soldiers from the battlefield on shabbat.

Bava Batra 155: שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי סָרִיס

For the source text click/tap here: Bava Batra 155

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Determining Maturity

Rava points out that the Mishna implies this added requirement, since it says, “one who reaches twenty, without pubic hairs – and who is a saris – is considered an adult.” The additional clause, “who is a saris” indicates that there are other signs that he is a saris.

Rabbi Chiya says that if one has no signs of a saris, nor pubic hairs, he is considered a minor until most of his life has passed, e.g. thirty-six years (the majority of seventy, the average lifespan).

The Gemora says that when people were brought to Rabbi Chiya to check for pubic hairs, he would ensure that they were not malnourished or overly obese, since both conditions can alter the appearance of the physical signs of maturity.

We explore the ramifications of male infertility.

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.