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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 6, 2017 | 讬状讘 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 134b

With what claims is one believed to exempt one’s wife from levirate marriage. 聽On what basis is he believed? 聽Can we split one’s testimony and believe part of what one said but not the other part? 聽What is the case in the mishna where the brothers disagree about whether they have another brother? 聽Is the other brother’s claim a definitive one or are they unsure whether or not he’s there brother? 聽Can we learn from here regarding other cases where one has a confident claim (bari) and the other is unsure (shema)? 聽If one has a will wrapped around his leg when he dies, it is invalid. 聽But if he passed it one to someone else, it is valid.

讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛 砖讛讞讝专转讬 讗诪专 讛讟讬讞 注诇讬 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 讛讟讬讞 注诇讬 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇

but if not, as the property is mine and I have the right to do with it whatever I want, you cannot repossess what I returned to the man鈥檚 children either. Shammai then said: Ben Uzziel reprimanded me; ben Uzziel reprimanded me, and I have no response.

诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讚讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉

The Gemara asks: What did Shammai hold initially, causing him to protest Yonatan ben Uzziel鈥檚 behavior? The Gemara answers: He protested due to the incident that happened in the city of Beit 岣ron.

讚转谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉 讘讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 诪讜讚专 讛讬诪谞讜 讛谞讗讛 讜讛讬讛 诪砖讬讗 讘谞讜 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讞爪专 讜住注讜讚讛 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 讜讗讬谞谉 诇驻谞讬讱 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讗 讗讘讗 讜讬讗讻诇 注诪谞讜 讘住注讜讚讛

As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 48a): An incident occurred involving someone in the city of Beit 岣ron whose father had vowed not to derive benefit from him, and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted his father to be able to participate in the wedding meal. And he therefore said to another: The courtyard where the wedding will take place and the wedding meal are hereby given to you as a gift, but they are given to you only so that my father will come and eat with us at the meal. The son wanted to circumvent the prohibition imposed by the vow and enable his father to participate in the meal, so he transferred ownership to someone else for that purpose.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 砖诇讬 讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 砖诇讬 砖转拽讚讬砖诐 诇砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 谞转转 诇讬 讗转 砖诇讱 讗诇讗 砖转讛讗 讗转讛 讜讗讘讬讱 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜砖讜转讬谉 讜诪专爪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讬讛讗 注讜谉 转诇讜讬 讘专讗砖讜

The recipient said to him: If they are mine, they are all hereby consecrated to Heaven, i.e., the Temple, and are forbidden to everyone. The son said to him in anger: I did not give you my property so that you should consecrate them to Heaven. The recipient said to him: You gave me your property only so that you and your father would eat and drink and thereby appease each other, and the sin of transgressing the vow would be hung on his, i.e., my, head, as I enabled the transgression.

讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 诪转谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诪讜拽讚砖转 讗讬谞讛 诪转谞讛

The mishna continues: In reference to this incident, the Sages said: Any gift that is not so absolute that if the recipient were to consecrate it, the gift would be consecrated, is not a gift. In other words, in order for it to be a gift the recipient must have the ability to consecrate it. Similarly, Shammai had initially reasoned that the gift to Yonatan ben Uzziel was not a valid gift, as its sole purpose was so that the property should not fall into the possession of the man鈥檚 children. Once he discovered that Yonatan ben Uzziel consecrated part of the gift, he realized that it was, in fact, a valid gift, with which the recipient could do whatever he pleased.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪讜谞讬诐 转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讜 诇讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讛谉 专讗讜讬诐 砖转砖专讛 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻讬谞讛 讻诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讛谉 专讗讜讬诐 砖转注诪讜讚 诇讛谉 讞诪讛 讻讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 注砖专讬诐 讘讬谞讜谞讬讬诐 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讻讜诇谉 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 拽讟谉 砖讘讻讜诇谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬

搂 Apropos Yonatan ben Uzziel, the Gemara cites that the Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the least of them was Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai.

讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 诪拽专讗 讜诪砖谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 讛诇讻讜转 讜讗讙讚讜转 讚拽讚讜拽讬 转讜专讛 讜讚拽讚讜拽讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜拽诇讬谉 讜讞诪讜专讬谉 讜讙讝专讜转 砖讜讜转 讜转拽讜驻讜转 讜讙诪讟专讬讗讜转 讜诪砖诇讜转 讻讜讘住讬诐 讜诪砖诇讜转 砖讜注诇讬诐 砖讬讞转 砖讚讬诐 讜砖讬讞转 讚拽诇讬诐 讜砖讬讞转 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 讜讚讘专 讙讚讜诇 讜讚讘专 拽讟谉

The Sages said about Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible and Mishna; Talmud; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; and the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences; and verbal analogies; and the calculation of the calendric seasons; and numerical values of Hebrew letters [gimatriyot]; and parables of launderers, which are folktales that can be used to explain the Torah, and parables of foxes. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees, and the conversation of ministering angels, and more generally, a great matter and a small matter.

讚讘专 讙讚讜诇 诪注砖讛 诪专讻讘讛 讜讚讘专 拽讟谉 讛讜讬讜转 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诇拽讬讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 讗讜讛讘讬 讬砖 讜讗爪专转讬讛诐 讗诪诇讗

The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot (see Ezekiel, chapter 1), the conduct of the transcendent universe, and a small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the discussions of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines, so as to fulfill that which is stated: 鈥淭hat I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries鈥 (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yo岣nan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚拽讟谉 砖讘讻讜诇诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讻讜诇诐 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖讬讜砖讘 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 讻诇 注讜祝 砖驻讜专讞 注诇讬讜 谞砖专祝

The Gemara adds: And if the least of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel鈥檚 students, that when he would sit and engage in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 讝讛 讗讞讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜讬讟讜诇 注诪讜 讘讞诇拽讜

MISHNA: One who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. One who says: This is my brother, is not deemed credible with regard to his other brothers鈥 obligation to share the inheritance with the subject of his statement. When one claims that this man is his brother, this claim is accepted with regard to the speaker鈥檚 own portion, and the man in question takes a share of their father鈥檚 inheritance with him, i.e., from his portion.

诪转 讬讞讝专讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇诪拽讜诪谉

If the man in question dies, the property he received from the father鈥檚 inheritance shall return to its place, i.e., to the possession of the brother who testified on his behalf, from whose portion he received a share.

谞驻诇讜 诇讜 谞讻住讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讬讬专砖讜 讗讞讬讜 注诪讜

If property came into the man in question鈥檚 possession from somewhere else, other than from the father, and the man in question died, all of the brothers of the one who testified shall inherit with the one who testified, as according to his claim they too are the heirs of the deceased.

讙诪壮 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬讜专砖讜 讜诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐

gemara The mishna teaches that one who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is stated with regard to inheriting from him, i.e., the son inherits from the speaker, and with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage. Because he claims that the person in question is his son, his wife is not required to enter into levirate marriage after his death, as he has a child.

诇讬讜专砖讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that his claim is deemed credible with regard to someone inheriting from him? Since he could have given this person his property as a gift, it need not be stated that his claim is accepted with regard to his inheritance. The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to state that his claim is deemed credible with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage despite the fact that it is not in his power to render her exempt, but the halakha of inheritance is not a novelty.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 讬砖 诇讬 讘谞讬诐 谞讗诪谉 讬砖 诇讬 讗讞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: We already learned this in a mishna (Kiddushin 64a) as well: One who said at the time of his death: I have children, is deemed credible, and his wife is thereby exempt from levirate marriage. If he said: I have brothers, and his wife therefore must enter levirate marriage, he is not deemed credible.

讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讞 讛讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇讬讛 讘讗讞

The Gemara answers: There, in that mishna, it is a case where he is not presumed by us to have a brother. Therefore, his wife is already presumed to be exempt from levirate marriage, and his claim that he has a son merely substantiates this presumption. Here, the mishna adds a novelty that even if he is presumed to have a brother, his claim that he has a son is accepted, and his wife is thereby exempted from levirate marriage.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉

Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that one who says: This is my son, is deemed credible? Since a husband who says: I divorced my wife, is deemed credible, and his wife is thereby exempt from levirate marriage, he is deemed credible with regard to this claim as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讘讚诇讗 转谞讬讗

As Rav Yosef forgot some of his Torah knowledge due to an illness, he questioned the accuracy of his citation of Rav Yehuda. Rav Yosef said: Master of Abraham! This reasoning makes that which is taught in the Mishna dependent upon that which is not taught, as the credibility of one who claims: This is my son, is stated in the mishna, while the halakha that a husband鈥檚 claim that he divorced his wife is accepted is the statement of an amora.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛

Rather, if this explanation was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that one who says: This is my son, is deemed credible with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage? Since it is in his power to divorce her and thereby render her exempt from levirate marriage, he is deemed credible with regard to this claim as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛

Rav Yosef said in addition: Now that you said that we say that the husband is deemed credible since he has the power to divorce her, a husband who says: I divorced my wife, is also deemed credible, since it is in his power to divorce her at any time.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诪谞驻讞 专讘 砖砖转 讘讬讚讬讛 讗讝诇 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

When Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A husband who says: I have divorced my wife, is not deemed credible. Rav Sheshet waved his hand disparagingly, as if to say that Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement that he is deemed credible since it is in his power to divorce her is gone due to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A husband who says: I have divorced my wife, is deemed credible?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇诪驻专注

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. Here, in the statement that the husband is not deemed credible, Rabbi Yo岣nan was referring to a retroactive testimony. For example, in a case where he testified that he divorced her on a certain date, and it is discovered that she engaged in sexual intercourse with another man after that date, his testimony is not accepted concerning whether the woman is liable to receive punishment; she is not considered to have been divorced at the time. This is because it is not in the husband鈥檚 power to divorce her retroactively.

讻讗谉 诇讛讘讗

By contrast, the statement there, where Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the husband鈥檚 testimony is deemed credible, refers to testimony for the future, e.g., where he says that he divorced her on that same day, or without specifying a date, in which case his statement is relevant only for the future. Since it was in his power to divorce her at that time, his testimony is deemed credible; if he dies, she is exempt from levirate marriage, and if she engages in sexual intercourse with another man, she is not considered to have committed adultery.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇诪驻专注 诪讛讜 诇讛讬诪讜谞讬讛 诇讛讘讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the husband said that he divorced his wife on a certain date, as a retroactive testimony, what is the halakha concerning his testimony being deemed credible and accepted with regard to the future, rendering her divorced from that time onward, despite the fact that his claim is not accepted with regard to the past?

诪讬 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讚讘讜专讗 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讚讘讜专讗 专讘 诪讗专讬 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讞讚 讗诪专 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉

The dilemma is based on the following fundamental question: Do we divide the husband鈥檚 statement, accepting that he divorced his wife inasmuch as she is considered divorced from that time onward, since it is in his power to divorce her now, even though his claim that he divorced her in the past is not accepted? Or do we not divide the statement, and say instead that his claim is rejected altogether, since his claim concerning the past cannot be accepted? Rav Mari and Rav Zevid engaged in a dispute with regard to this issue. One says that we divide the husband鈥檚 statement, and one says that we do not divide it.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗 注诇 讗砖转讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讞专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讜专讙讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜诇讗 诇讛讜专讙讛

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from Rava鈥檚 statement? As Rava says that if a man says: So-and-so engaged in sexual intercourse with my wife, the husband and another witness combine to kill him, i.e., to have him sentenced to death for adultery. The Gemara infers: He combines with another witness to kill him, but not to kill her. The wife is not sentenced to death based on this testimony, even if they testified that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, as a husband is disqualified from bearing witness concerning his wife. Evidently, the husband鈥檚 testimony is divided; his testimony concerning the man is accepted even though the testimony concerning his wife鈥檚 part in the same action is rejected.

讘转专讬 讙讜驻讬 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讘讞讚 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: With regard to two separate bodies we divide the statement. Therefore the husband鈥檚 testimony is accepted with regard to the man but rejected with regard to his wife. With regard to one body we do not divide it. That is why one Sage holds that a husband鈥檚 claim that he divorced his wife in the past cannot be divided, so that his claim that he divorced her would be accepted while his claim as to when he divorced her would be rejected.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 134b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 134b

讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讛 砖讛讞讝专转讬 讗诪专 讛讟讬讞 注诇讬 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 讛讟讬讞 注诇讬 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇

but if not, as the property is mine and I have the right to do with it whatever I want, you cannot repossess what I returned to the man鈥檚 children either. Shammai then said: Ben Uzziel reprimanded me; ben Uzziel reprimanded me, and I have no response.

诪注讬拽专讗 诪讗讬 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讚讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉

The Gemara asks: What did Shammai hold initially, causing him to protest Yonatan ben Uzziel鈥檚 behavior? The Gemara answers: He protested due to the incident that happened in the city of Beit 岣ron.

讚转谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉 讘讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讗讘讬讜 诪讜讚专 讛讬诪谞讜 讛谞讗讛 讜讛讬讛 诪砖讬讗 讘谞讜 讜讗诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讞爪专 讜住注讜讚讛 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 讜讗讬谞谉 诇驻谞讬讱 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讘讗 讗讘讗 讜讬讗讻诇 注诪谞讜 讘住注讜讚讛

As we learned in a mishna (Nedarim 48a): An incident occurred involving someone in the city of Beit 岣ron whose father had vowed not to derive benefit from him, and the son was marrying off his own son and wanted his father to be able to participate in the wedding meal. And he therefore said to another: The courtyard where the wedding will take place and the wedding meal are hereby given to you as a gift, but they are given to you only so that my father will come and eat with us at the meal. The son wanted to circumvent the prohibition imposed by the vow and enable his father to participate in the meal, so he transferred ownership to someone else for that purpose.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 砖诇讬 讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 谞转转讬 诇讱 讗转 砖诇讬 砖转拽讚讬砖诐 诇砖诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 谞转转 诇讬 讗转 砖诇讱 讗诇讗 砖转讛讗 讗转讛 讜讗讘讬讱 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜砖讜转讬谉 讜诪专爪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讜讬讛讗 注讜谉 转诇讜讬 讘专讗砖讜

The recipient said to him: If they are mine, they are all hereby consecrated to Heaven, i.e., the Temple, and are forbidden to everyone. The son said to him in anger: I did not give you my property so that you should consecrate them to Heaven. The recipient said to him: You gave me your property only so that you and your father would eat and drink and thereby appease each other, and the sin of transgressing the vow would be hung on his, i.e., my, head, as I enabled the transgression.

讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讻诇 诪转谞讛 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诪讜拽讚砖转 讗讬谞讛 诪转谞讛

The mishna continues: In reference to this incident, the Sages said: Any gift that is not so absolute that if the recipient were to consecrate it, the gift would be consecrated, is not a gift. In other words, in order for it to be a gift the recipient must have the ability to consecrate it. Similarly, Shammai had initially reasoned that the gift to Yonatan ben Uzziel was not a valid gift, as its sole purpose was so that the property should not fall into the possession of the man鈥檚 children. Once he discovered that Yonatan ben Uzziel consecrated part of the gift, he realized that it was, in fact, a valid gift, with which the recipient could do whatever he pleased.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪讜谞讬诐 转诇诪讬讚讬诐 讛讬讜 诇讜 诇讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讛谉 专讗讜讬诐 砖转砖专讛 注诇讬讛谉 砖讻讬谞讛 讻诪砖讛 专讘讬谞讜 砖诇砖讬诐 诪讛谉 专讗讜讬诐 砖转注诪讜讚 诇讛谉 讞诪讛 讻讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 注砖专讬诐 讘讬谞讜谞讬讬诐 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讻讜诇谉 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 拽讟谉 砖讘讻讜诇谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬

搂 Apropos Yonatan ben Uzziel, the Gemara cites that the Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the least of them was Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai.

讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖诇讗 讛谞讬讞 诪拽专讗 讜诪砖谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 讛诇讻讜转 讜讗讙讚讜转 讚拽讚讜拽讬 转讜专讛 讜讚拽讚讜拽讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜拽诇讬谉 讜讞诪讜专讬谉 讜讙讝专讜转 砖讜讜转 讜转拽讜驻讜转 讜讙诪讟专讬讗讜转 讜诪砖诇讜转 讻讜讘住讬诐 讜诪砖诇讜转 砖讜注诇讬诐 砖讬讞转 砖讚讬诐 讜砖讬讞转 讚拽诇讬诐 讜砖讬讞转 诪诇讗讻讬 讛砖专转 讜讚讘专 讙讚讜诇 讜讚讘专 拽讟谉

The Sages said about Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible and Mishna; Talmud; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; and the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences; and verbal analogies; and the calculation of the calendric seasons; and numerical values of Hebrew letters [gimatriyot]; and parables of launderers, which are folktales that can be used to explain the Torah, and parables of foxes. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees, and the conversation of ministering angels, and more generally, a great matter and a small matter.

讚讘专 讙讚讜诇 诪注砖讛 诪专讻讘讛 讜讚讘专 拽讟谉 讛讜讬讜转 讚讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诇拽讬讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 讗讜讛讘讬 讬砖 讜讗爪专转讬讛诐 讗诪诇讗

The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot (see Ezekiel, chapter 1), the conduct of the transcendent universe, and a small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the discussions of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines, so as to fulfill that which is stated: 鈥淭hat I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries鈥 (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yo岣nan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚拽讟谉 砖讘讻讜诇诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讻讜诇诐 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讗诪专讜 注诇讬讜 注诇 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 注讜讝讬讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖讬讜砖讘 讜注讜住拽 讘转讜专讛 讻诇 注讜祝 砖驻讜专讞 注诇讬讜 谞砖专祝

The Gemara adds: And if the least of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel鈥檚 students, that when he would sit and engage in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 讝讛 讗讞讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜讬讟讜诇 注诪讜 讘讞诇拽讜

MISHNA: One who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. One who says: This is my brother, is not deemed credible with regard to his other brothers鈥 obligation to share the inheritance with the subject of his statement. When one claims that this man is his brother, this claim is accepted with regard to the speaker鈥檚 own portion, and the man in question takes a share of their father鈥檚 inheritance with him, i.e., from his portion.

诪转 讬讞讝专讜 谞讻住讬诐 诇诪拽讜诪谉

If the man in question dies, the property he received from the father鈥檚 inheritance shall return to its place, i.e., to the possession of the brother who testified on his behalf, from whose portion he received a share.

谞驻诇讜 诇讜 谞讻住讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讬讬专砖讜 讗讞讬讜 注诪讜

If property came into the man in question鈥檚 possession from somewhere else, other than from the father, and the man in question died, all of the brothers of the one who testified shall inherit with the one who testified, as according to his claim they too are the heirs of the deceased.

讙诪壮 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬讜专砖讜 讜诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐

gemara The mishna teaches that one who says: This is my son, is deemed credible. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is stated with regard to inheriting from him, i.e., the son inherits from the speaker, and with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage. Because he claims that the person in question is his son, his wife is not required to enter into levirate marriage after his death, as he has a child.

诇讬讜专砖讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诇驻讟讜专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪谉 讛讬讘讜诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that his claim is deemed credible with regard to someone inheriting from him? Since he could have given this person his property as a gift, it need not be stated that his claim is accepted with regard to his inheritance. The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to state that his claim is deemed credible with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage despite the fact that it is not in his power to render her exempt, but the halakha of inheritance is not a novelty.

讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 讬砖 诇讬 讘谞讬诐 谞讗诪谉 讬砖 诇讬 讗讞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: We already learned this in a mishna (Kiddushin 64a) as well: One who said at the time of his death: I have children, is deemed credible, and his wife is thereby exempt from levirate marriage. If he said: I have brothers, and his wife therefore must enter levirate marriage, he is not deemed credible.

讛转诐 讚诇讗 诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讞 讛讻讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇讬讛 讘讗讞

The Gemara answers: There, in that mishna, it is a case where he is not presumed by us to have a brother. Therefore, his wife is already presumed to be exempt from levirate marriage, and his claim that he has a son merely substantiates this presumption. Here, the mishna adds a novelty that even if he is presumed to have a brother, his claim that he has a son is accepted, and his wife is thereby exempted from levirate marriage.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉

Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that one who says: This is my son, is deemed credible? Since a husband who says: I divorced my wife, is deemed credible, and his wife is thereby exempt from levirate marriage, he is deemed credible with regard to this claim as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讘讚诇讗 转谞讬讗

As Rav Yosef forgot some of his Torah knowledge due to an illness, he questioned the accuracy of his citation of Rav Yehuda. Rav Yosef said: Master of Abraham! This reasoning makes that which is taught in the Mishna dependent upon that which is not taught, as the credibility of one who claims: This is my son, is stated in the mishna, while the halakha that a husband鈥檚 claim that he divorced his wife is accepted is the statement of an amora.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讝讛 讘谞讬 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛

Rather, if this explanation was stated, it was stated like this: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: For what reason did the Sages say that one who says: This is my son, is deemed credible with regard to rendering his wife exempt from levirate marriage? Since it is in his power to divorce her and thereby render her exempt from levirate marriage, he is deemed credible with regard to this claim as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讬讚讜 诇讙专砖讛

Rav Yosef said in addition: Now that you said that we say that the husband is deemed credible since he has the power to divorce her, a husband who says: I divorced my wife, is also deemed credible, since it is in his power to divorce her at any time.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诪谞驻讞 专讘 砖砖转 讘讬讚讬讛 讗讝诇 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讚专讘 讬讜住祝

When Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A husband who says: I have divorced my wife, is not deemed credible. Rav Sheshet waved his hand disparagingly, as if to say that Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement that he is deemed credible since it is in his power to divorce her is gone due to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇 砖讗诪专 讙专砖转讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 谞讗诪谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A husband who says: I have divorced my wife, is deemed credible?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇诪驻专注

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. Here, in the statement that the husband is not deemed credible, Rabbi Yo岣nan was referring to a retroactive testimony. For example, in a case where he testified that he divorced her on a certain date, and it is discovered that she engaged in sexual intercourse with another man after that date, his testimony is not accepted concerning whether the woman is liable to receive punishment; she is not considered to have been divorced at the time. This is because it is not in the husband鈥檚 power to divorce her retroactively.

讻讗谉 诇讛讘讗

By contrast, the statement there, where Rabbi Yo岣nan said that the husband鈥檚 testimony is deemed credible, refers to testimony for the future, e.g., where he says that he divorced her on that same day, or without specifying a date, in which case his statement is relevant only for the future. Since it was in his power to divorce her at that time, his testimony is deemed credible; if he dies, she is exempt from levirate marriage, and if she engages in sexual intercourse with another man, she is not considered to have committed adultery.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇诪驻专注 诪讛讜 诇讛讬诪讜谞讬讛 诇讛讘讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the husband said that he divorced his wife on a certain date, as a retroactive testimony, what is the halakha concerning his testimony being deemed credible and accepted with regard to the future, rendering her divorced from that time onward, despite the fact that his claim is not accepted with regard to the past?

诪讬 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讚讘讜专讗 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讚讘讜专讗 专讘 诪讗专讬 讜专讘 讝讘讬讚 讞讚 讗诪专 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉

The dilemma is based on the following fundamental question: Do we divide the husband鈥檚 statement, accepting that he divorced his wife inasmuch as she is considered divorced from that time onward, since it is in his power to divorce her now, even though his claim that he divorced her in the past is not accepted? Or do we not divide the statement, and say instead that his claim is rejected altogether, since his claim concerning the past cannot be accepted? Rav Mari and Rav Zevid engaged in a dispute with regard to this issue. One says that we divide the husband鈥檚 statement, and one says that we do not divide it.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讗 注诇 讗砖转讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讞专 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讜专讙讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜诇讗 诇讛讜专讙讛

The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from Rava鈥檚 statement? As Rava says that if a man says: So-and-so engaged in sexual intercourse with my wife, the husband and another witness combine to kill him, i.e., to have him sentenced to death for adultery. The Gemara infers: He combines with another witness to kill him, but not to kill her. The wife is not sentenced to death based on this testimony, even if they testified that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, as a husband is disqualified from bearing witness concerning his wife. Evidently, the husband鈥檚 testimony is divided; his testimony concerning the man is accepted even though the testimony concerning his wife鈥檚 part in the same action is rejected.

讘转专讬 讙讜驻讬 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讘讞讚 讙讜驻讗 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: With regard to two separate bodies we divide the statement. Therefore the husband鈥檚 testimony is accepted with regard to the man but rejected with regard to his wife. With regard to one body we do not divide it. That is why one Sage holds that a husband鈥檚 claim that he divorced his wife in the past cannot be divided, so that his claim that he divorced her would be accepted while his claim as to when he divorced her would be rejected.

Scroll To Top