Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 5, 2017 | 讬状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Bava Batra 133b

Is it OK to bypass one’s son’s inheritance? 聽Does it make a difference if the son does not behave appropriately either toward God or toward the father? 聽Yosef ben Yoezer bypassed his son and a story is told about the aftermath. 聽However the story is inconclusive regarding this question. 聽Another story is told of one who bypassed his sons and passed his inheritance to Yonatan ben Uziel who in turn returned a third of it to the sons. 聽Shamai attacks him for doing it but he proves to Shamai that he was correct. 聽It is unclear from the details of the story whether the father was hoping Yonatan would give his sons something or not. 聽The greatness of the students of Hillel the Elder are brought as Yonatan ben Uziel was the greatest among them. 聽Is one believed for the purposes of inheritance and levirate (yibum) marriage to say that one has a son or a brother (if there are no brothers, there is no obligation of levirate marriage)?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬诇讜 讛讚专 拽谞讬 诪讬 诇讗 砖拽诇讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛讚专 拽谞讬 砖拽诇讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 砖拽诇讗

Rav Kahana said to him: If the husband had then acquired other property, would she not have taken it as payment of her marriage contract? And since if he would have then acquired other property she would have taken it as payment of her marriage contract, now she also takes the deceased daughter鈥檚 share as payment of her marriage contract.

讛讛讜讗 讚驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 诇讗转转讬讛 讜诇讘谞讬讛 砖讬讬专 讞讚 讚讬拽诇讗 住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 讚讬拽诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讞讚 讚讬拽诇讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讙讜 讚谞讞转讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 谞讞转讗 谞诪讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜 谞讻住讬

There was a certain person who divided his property between his wife and his son, leaving out a single palm tree. Ravina thought to say that the wife has only the single palm tree as future payment of her marriage contract, which was presumably left out of the distribution for this reason. Rav Yeimar said to Ravina: If she does not have the right to collect payment of her marriage contract from all of his property, as she presumably waived that right when he gave her the gift of some of his property, she does not have the right to collect it from the single palm tree either and it belongs to the heirs. Rav Yeimar presents a different ruling: Rather, since the halakha is that she does descend to collect the palm tree, she therefore descends to collect all of the property as well, i.e., she receives payment of her marriage contract from all the property.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专 专讜讗讬谉 讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讛

Rav Huna says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a document granting all his property to another, the court investigates the legal status of the recipient: If he is fit to inherit from him, e.g., if he is one of his sons, he takes the property as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讘讗 讙谞讜讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讚讛讗 砖诪注转转讬讱 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讝诇讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: Why should you steal this halakha and not attribute it to its source? If you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, say explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as your halakhic statement follows the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka that a person can bequeath his property to any of his heirs.

讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讛讗 拽讗诪专转 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 砖讻讬讘 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚诇诪讗 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Perhaps this is what you meant to say: There was a certain childless person who was dying, and those around him said to him: To whom should his, i.e., your, property be given? Perhaps it should be given to so-and-so? And he said to them: Rather, to whom if not him? And you, Rav Huna, meant to say to us: If that person is fit to inherit from him, he takes it as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift. Rav Huna said to him: Yes, that is what I was saying.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 住讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬讜

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is there a difference whether he receives it as an inheritance or as a gift? Rav Adda bar Ahava, who was in the presence of Rava, thought that it would be correct to say: If he is fit to inherit from him, the giver鈥檚 widow is sustained from his property, as she has the right to be sustained from the inheritance; and if not, and the property was given as a gift, his widow is not sustained from his property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬讙专注 讙专注讗 讛砖转讗 讘讬专讜砖讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪专转 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讘诪转谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava said to him: Can the widow鈥檚 right be diminished by the gift? Now that you say with regard to inheritance, which is granted by Torah law, that his widow is sustained from his property, with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, which is effective without any formal act of acquisition by rabbinic law, all the more so is it not clear that the widow has sustenance rights?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讚砖诇讞 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 谞讻住讬 诇讱 讜讗讞专讬讱 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讻诇讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讜谉 诪转谞讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬专讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛驻住拽

Rather, Rava said that the difference whether it is inheritance or a gift is in accordance with the ruling that Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya sent: According to the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, in the case of one who said: My property is given to you, and after you to so-and-so, and the first recipient was fit to inherit from him, the second gets nothing in place of the first, i.e., he does not receive the property after the first one dies, as this formulation employed by the owner was not one of a gift. Rather, it was a formulation of inheritance, and inheritance has no end, i.e., it cannot be stopped. Therefore, since the first recipient acquired it as an inheritance, his heirs inherit it from him, and it cannot be taken by the second.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讗 讗驻住拽讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 讬砖 诇讛 讛驻住拽 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛驻住拽

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: But he ended it. The one who bequeathed it to him ended his inheritance in advance by stating that after the first dies, the property will be given to the second. The Gemara answers: He thought that inheritance has an end; but the Merciful One states that it has no end.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 谞讻住讬 诇讱 讜讗讞专讬讱 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜专讗砖讜谉 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讛讜讛 砖讻讬讘 专讗砖讜谉 讗转讗 砖谞讬 拽讗 转讘注

There was a certain person who said to another: My property is given to you, and after you, to so-and-so, and the first one was fit to inherit from him. After the first died, the second came and claimed the property.

住讘专 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 砖拽讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬讬谞讬 讚讞爪爪转讗 讛讻讬 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诇讞 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬讗

Rav Ilish, who was in the presence of Rava, thought to say that the second also takes a share of the property; he divides it with the heirs of the first. Rava said to him: Judges of compromise, who as a matter of course divide disputed property between the parties, rule in this manner. But isn鈥檛 this identical to the case concerning which Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya sent a ruling that the second receives nothing?

讗讻住讬祝 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讛壮 讘注转讛 讗讞讬砖谞讛

Rav Ilish was embarrassed by his mistake. To comfort him, Rav read the following verse about him: 鈥淚, the Lord, will hasten it in its time鈥 (Isaiah 60:22), as if to say: It was due to Divine Providence that I was here to correct you before your mistaken ruling was implemented.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜转讘 讗转 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 讘谞讬讜 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 讘谞讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讻砖讜专讛 讝讻讜专 诇讟讜讘

MISHNA: With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 诇讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, maintaining that depriving one鈥檚 children of their inheritance is inappropriate in any event, or not?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讬讛 诇讜 讘谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 谞讜讛讙 讻砖讜专讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注讬诇讬转讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 拽诐 讗拽讚砖讛 讗讝讬诇 谞住讬讘 讘转 讙讗讚讬诇 讻诇讬诇讬 讚讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 讗讜诇讬讚讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讘讬谞讬转讗 拽专注讛 讗砖讻讞 讘讛 诪专讙诇讬转讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer had a vessel [illiyyata] full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai鈥檚 crown weaver. After the son鈥檚 wife gave birth, he bought her a fish [binita]. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it.

讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗 转诪讟讬讬讛 诇诪诇讻讗 讚砖拽诇讬 诇讛 诪讬谞讱 讘讚诪讬 拽诇讬诇讬 讝讬诇 讗诪讟讬讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讙讝讘专讬 讜诇讗 转砖讬讬诪讛 讗转 讚讗诪讬专转讜 诇讙讘讜讛 讻诪住讬专转讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讗诇讗 诇砖讬讬诪讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜

His wife said to him: Do not bring it to the treasury of the king to sell it, as they will take it from you for an insignificant sum of money. Rather, go bring it to the Temple treasurers. And do not appraise it yourself, as declaration to the Most High is equivalent to transfer to an ordinary person, and if you offer to sell it for an amount less than its worth, you will not be able to change your mind. Rather, let them appraise it.

讗诪讟讬讬讛 砖诪讜讛 讘转诇讬住专讬 注诇讬讗转讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 砖讘注 讗讬讻讗 砖讬转 诇讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讘注 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讬转 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讜转 诇砖诪讬诐

He brought it to the Temple treasury, and they appraised it as having the value of thirteen vessels [illiyyata] full of dinars. The treasurers said to him: There are seven illiyyata of dinars at our disposal to pay you for the pearl, but there are not an additional six. He said to the treasurers: Give me the seven in exchange for the pearl, and as for the additional six that you owe me, they are hereby consecrated to Heaven.

注诪讚讜 讜讻转讘讜 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讻谞讬住 讗讞转 讜讘谞讜 讛讻谞讬住 砖砖 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讻谞讬住 讗讞转 讜讘谞讜 讛讜爪讬讗 砖讘注

The treasurers arose and wrote: Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son bestowed six. And there are those who say that they wrote: Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son removed seven, which he received for the pearl.

诪讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讛讻谞讬住 诪讻诇诇 讚砖驻讬专 注讘讚 讗讚专讘讛 诪讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讛讜爪讬讗 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗讜 砖驻讬专 注讘讚 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara infers: From the fact that they said approvingly that Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer鈥檚 son bestowed seven, by inference, he acted well when he left him out of his inheritance. The Gemara responds: On the contrary; from the fact that according to the second account, they said disparagingly that he removed seven, by inference, Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer did not act well when he left him out of his inheritance, as he caused money to be removed from the Temple treasury. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this story with regard to the dilemma as to whether the Rabbis agree with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the two accounts contradict each other on this matter.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 讘讬 注讘讜专讬 讗讞住谞转讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘专讗 讘讬砖讗 诇讘专讗 讟讘讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪讘专讗 诇讘专转讗

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not be in a house where inheritance is transferred away from its rightful heir, even if it is transferred from a wicked son to a good son, and all the more so if it is transferred from a son to a daughter. Evidently, the Rabbis hold that inheritance should not be transferred in any case.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 讘谞讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讻砖讜专讛 注诪讚 讜讻转讘 谞讻住讬讜 诇讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 诪讛 注砖讛 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 诪讻专 砖诇讬砖 讜讛拽讚讬砖 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讘谞讬讜 砖诇讬砖

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man whose children did not act properly. He arose and wrote a document transferring all his property to Yonatan ben Uzziel, one of the Sages, as a gift. What did Yonatan ben Uzziel do? He sold a third of the property for his needs, and consecrated a third of the property, and returned the remaining third to the man鈥檚 children.

讘讗 注诇讬讜 砖诪讗讬 讘诪拽诇讜 讜转专诪讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗讬 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 诪讛 砖诪讻专转讬 讜诪讛 砖讛拽讚砖转讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛 砖讛讞讝专转讬

Shammai came to Yonatan ben Uzziel with his staff and traveling bag to protest his giving part of the property to the man鈥檚 children against the deceased鈥檚 wishes. Yonatan ben Uzziel said to him: Shammai, if you can repossess the property that I sold from the purchasers and the property that I consecrated from the Temple treasury, you can repossess what I returned to the man鈥檚 children as well;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 133b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 133b

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬诇讜 讛讚专 拽谞讬 诪讬 诇讗 砖拽诇讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讛讚专 拽谞讬 砖拽诇讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 砖拽诇讗

Rav Kahana said to him: If the husband had then acquired other property, would she not have taken it as payment of her marriage contract? And since if he would have then acquired other property she would have taken it as payment of her marriage contract, now she also takes the deceased daughter鈥檚 share as payment of her marriage contract.

讛讛讜讗 讚驻诇讙讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 诇讗转转讬讛 讜诇讘谞讬讛 砖讬讬专 讞讚 讚讬拽诇讗 住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 讚讬拽诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讞讚 讚讬拽诇讗 谞诪讬 诇讬转 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讙讜 讚谞讞转讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 谞讞转讗 谞诪讬 诇讻讜诇讛讜 谞讻住讬

There was a certain person who divided his property between his wife and his son, leaving out a single palm tree. Ravina thought to say that the wife has only the single palm tree as future payment of her marriage contract, which was presumably left out of the distribution for this reason. Rav Yeimar said to Ravina: If she does not have the right to collect payment of her marriage contract from all of his property, as she presumably waived that right when he gave her the gift of some of his property, she does not have the right to collect it from the single palm tree either and it belongs to the heirs. Rav Yeimar presents a different ruling: Rather, since the halakha is that she does descend to collect the palm tree, she therefore descends to collect all of the property as well, i.e., she receives payment of her marriage contract from all the property.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专 专讜讗讬谉 讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讛

Rav Huna says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a document granting all his property to another, the court investigates the legal status of the recipient: If he is fit to inherit from him, e.g., if he is one of his sons, he takes the property as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙谞讘讗 讙谞讜讘讬 诇诪讛 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讚讛讗 砖诪注转转讬讱 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讝诇讗

Rav Na岣an said to him: Why should you steal this halakha and not attribute it to its source? If you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, say explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as your halakhic statement follows the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka that a person can bequeath his property to any of his heirs.

讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讛讗 拽讗诪专转 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 砖讻讬讘 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬讛 诇诪讗谉 讚诇诪讗 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讜讗诪专转 诇谉 注诇讛 讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 讬专讜砖讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 谞讜讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Perhaps this is what you meant to say: There was a certain childless person who was dying, and those around him said to him: To whom should his, i.e., your, property be given? Perhaps it should be given to so-and-so? And he said to them: Rather, to whom if not him? And you, Rav Huna, meant to say to us: If that person is fit to inherit from him, he takes it as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift. Rav Huna said to him: Yes, that is what I was saying.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 住讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诐 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬讜

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is there a difference whether he receives it as an inheritance or as a gift? Rav Adda bar Ahava, who was in the presence of Rava, thought that it would be correct to say: If he is fit to inherit from him, the giver鈥檚 widow is sustained from his property, as she has the right to be sustained from the inheritance; and if not, and the property was given as a gift, his widow is not sustained from his property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诪讬讙专注 讙专注讗 讛砖转讗 讘讬专讜砖讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诪专转 讗诇诪谞转讜 谞讝讜谞讬转 诪谞讻住讬讜 讘诪转谞讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rava said to him: Can the widow鈥檚 right be diminished by the gift? Now that you say with regard to inheritance, which is granted by Torah law, that his widow is sustained from his property, with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, which is effective without any formal act of acquisition by rabbinic law, all the more so is it not clear that the widow has sustenance rights?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讚砖诇讞 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 谞讻住讬 诇讱 讜讗讞专讬讱 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讗讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪拽讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讻诇讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诇砖讜谉 诪转谞讛 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讬专讜砖讛 讜讬专讜砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛驻住拽

Rather, Rava said that the difference whether it is inheritance or a gift is in accordance with the ruling that Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya sent: According to the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, in the case of one who said: My property is given to you, and after you to so-and-so, and the first recipient was fit to inherit from him, the second gets nothing in place of the first, i.e., he does not receive the property after the first one dies, as this formulation employed by the owner was not one of a gift. Rather, it was a formulation of inheritance, and inheritance has no end, i.e., it cannot be stopped. Therefore, since the first recipient acquired it as an inheritance, his heirs inherit it from him, and it cannot be taken by the second.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讗 讗驻住拽讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 讬砖 诇讛 讛驻住拽 讜专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讛 讛驻住拽

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: But he ended it. The one who bequeathed it to him ended his inheritance in advance by stating that after the first dies, the property will be given to the second. The Gemara answers: He thought that inheritance has an end; but the Merciful One states that it has no end.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 谞讻住讬 诇讱 讜讗讞专讬讱 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜专讗砖讜谉 专讗讜讬 诇讬讜专砖讜 讛讜讛 砖讻讬讘 专讗砖讜谉 讗转讗 砖谞讬 拽讗 转讘注

There was a certain person who said to another: My property is given to you, and after you, to so-and-so, and the first one was fit to inherit from him. After the first died, the second came and claimed the property.

住讘专 专讘 注讬诇讬砖 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖谞讬 谞诪讬 砖拽讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬讬谞讬 讚讞爪爪转讗 讛讻讬 讚讬讬谞讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诇讞 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 专讘 注讜讬讗

Rav Ilish, who was in the presence of Rava, thought to say that the second also takes a share of the property; he divides it with the heirs of the first. Rava said to him: Judges of compromise, who as a matter of course divide disputed property between the parties, rule in this manner. But isn鈥檛 this identical to the case concerning which Rav A岣 bar Rav Avya sent a ruling that the second receives nothing?

讗讻住讬祝 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讛壮 讘注转讛 讗讞讬砖谞讛

Rav Ilish was embarrassed by his mistake. To comfort him, Rav read the following verse about him: 鈥淚, the Lord, will hasten it in its time鈥 (Isaiah 60:22), as if to say: It was due to Divine Providence that I was here to correct you before your mistaken ruling was implemented.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讜转讘 讗转 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜讛谞讬讞 讗转 讘谞讬讜 诪讛 砖注砖讛 注砖讜讬 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 讘谞讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讻砖讜专讛 讝讻讜专 诇讟讜讘

MISHNA: With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜 诇讗

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, maintaining that depriving one鈥檚 children of their inheritance is inappropriate in any event, or not?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讬讛 诇讜 讘谉 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 谞讜讛讙 讻砖讜专讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 注讬诇讬转讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 拽诐 讗拽讚砖讛 讗讝讬诇 谞住讬讘 讘转 讙讗讚讬诇 讻诇讬诇讬 讚讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 讗讜诇讬讚讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讝讘讬谉 诇讛 讘讬谞讬转讗 拽专注讛 讗砖讻讞 讘讛 诪专讙诇讬转讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer had a vessel [illiyyata] full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai鈥檚 crown weaver. After the son鈥檚 wife gave birth, he bought her a fish [binita]. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it.

讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗 转诪讟讬讬讛 诇诪诇讻讗 讚砖拽诇讬 诇讛 诪讬谞讱 讘讚诪讬 拽诇讬诇讬 讝讬诇 讗诪讟讬讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讙讝讘专讬 讜诇讗 转砖讬讬诪讛 讗转 讚讗诪讬专转讜 诇讙讘讜讛 讻诪住讬专转讜 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讗诇讗 诇砖讬讬诪讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜

His wife said to him: Do not bring it to the treasury of the king to sell it, as they will take it from you for an insignificant sum of money. Rather, go bring it to the Temple treasurers. And do not appraise it yourself, as declaration to the Most High is equivalent to transfer to an ordinary person, and if you offer to sell it for an amount less than its worth, you will not be able to change your mind. Rather, let them appraise it.

讗诪讟讬讬讛 砖诪讜讛 讘转诇讬住专讬 注诇讬讗转讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 砖讘注 讗讬讻讗 砖讬转 诇讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖讘注 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讬转 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讜转 诇砖诪讬诐

He brought it to the Temple treasury, and they appraised it as having the value of thirteen vessels [illiyyata] full of dinars. The treasurers said to him: There are seven illiyyata of dinars at our disposal to pay you for the pearl, but there are not an additional six. He said to the treasurers: Give me the seven in exchange for the pearl, and as for the additional six that you owe me, they are hereby consecrated to Heaven.

注诪讚讜 讜讻转讘讜 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讻谞讬住 讗讞转 讜讘谞讜 讛讻谞讬住 砖砖 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讬讜注讝专 讛讻谞讬住 讗讞转 讜讘谞讜 讛讜爪讬讗 砖讘注

The treasurers arose and wrote: Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son bestowed six. And there are those who say that they wrote: Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son removed seven, which he received for the pearl.

诪讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讛讻谞讬住 诪讻诇诇 讚砖驻讬专 注讘讚 讗讚专讘讛 诪讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 讛讜爪讬讗 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗讜 砖驻讬专 注讘讚 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara infers: From the fact that they said approvingly that Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer鈥檚 son bestowed seven, by inference, he acted well when he left him out of his inheritance. The Gemara responds: On the contrary; from the fact that according to the second account, they said disparagingly that he removed seven, by inference, Yosef ben Yo鈥檈zer did not act well when he left him out of his inheritance, as he caused money to be removed from the Temple treasury. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this story with regard to the dilemma as to whether the Rabbis agree with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the two accounts contradict each other on this matter.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 讘讬 注讘讜专讬 讗讞住谞转讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讘专讗 讘讬砖讗 诇讘专讗 讟讘讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 诪讘专讗 诇讘专转讗

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not be in a house where inheritance is transferred away from its rightful heir, even if it is transferred from a wicked son to a good son, and all the more so if it is transferred from a son to a daughter. Evidently, the Rabbis hold that inheritance should not be transferred in any case.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 讘谞讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讻砖讜专讛 注诪讚 讜讻转讘 谞讻住讬讜 诇讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 诪讛 注砖讛 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 诪讻专 砖诇讬砖 讜讛拽讚讬砖 砖诇讬砖 讜讛讞讝讬专 诇讘谞讬讜 砖诇讬砖

The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man whose children did not act properly. He arose and wrote a document transferring all his property to Yonatan ben Uzziel, one of the Sages, as a gift. What did Yonatan ben Uzziel do? He sold a third of the property for his needs, and consecrated a third of the property, and returned the remaining third to the man鈥檚 children.

讘讗 注诇讬讜 砖诪讗讬 讘诪拽诇讜 讜转专诪讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讜 砖诪讗讬 讗诐 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 诪讛 砖诪讻专转讬 讜诪讛 砖讛拽讚砖转讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛 砖讛讞讝专转讬

Shammai came to Yonatan ben Uzziel with his staff and traveling bag to protest his giving part of the property to the man鈥檚 children against the deceased鈥檚 wishes. Yonatan ben Uzziel said to him: Shammai, if you can repossess the property that I sold from the purchasers and the property that I consecrated from the Temple treasury, you can repossess what I returned to the man鈥檚 children as well;

Scroll To Top