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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 9, 2017 | 讟状讜 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 138

In what way can one not accept a gift if one didn’t immediately say, “I don’t want it.” 聽Different wordings of statements made on one’s deathbed are discussed and analyzed as to the exact intent of the person. 聽The cases are concerning a gift given to one who anyway was “owed” money by the person – was the intent that the gift was in addition or in place of what was owed. 聽Different situations are brought. 聽If on one’s deathbed one says that someone owes him/her money, can witnesses document the statement without verifying? 聽Are we concerned the court will act upon it without checking into it (therefore the witnesses can’t write it) or do we assume the court will do their homework (and therefore the witnesses can write it).聽 聽If one left older and younger children, all get equal even if it means that some got married in the father’s lifetime and聽therefore got more money for the wedding. 聽Can younger daughters demand dowry money from the husband of one the sisters who got married earlier if they used some of the joint inheritance money for their dowry.聽 If a woman borrows money without a document and then gets married – since her husband has rights to her money, is he considered a “buyer” in which case, the creditor can’t collect thew loan or is he considered an inheritor and the loan can be collected.聽 The gemara brings various cases which indicate both ways to which the gemara explains that it depends on the situation – whatever is in the best interest of the husband or if there is some other important consideration (providing for a widow).


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讻讗谉 讘爪讜讜讞 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讜转拽 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞

Here, in Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, it is a case where he is shouting in protest at the outset. As soon as he is given the deed of gift he states that he does not want it. In this case, he does not receive the property. There, in Shmuel鈥檚 statement, it is a case where he is initially silent when he receives the deed of gift, and is ultimately shouting in protest that he does not want it. In this case he acquires the gift before he protests, so it is his.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜砖转拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says that if the owner transfers ownership of the property to him through another person, who performs an act of acquisition for this other party in his presence, and he was initially silent, i.e., when the act of acquisition is performed, but ultimately shouted in protest when the property is actually given to him, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜转讘 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜讗诪专 讛诇讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讛谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖谞讬 讻讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖讗诪专 讛诇讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讛谉 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:1): If one wrote a document granting his property to another, and there were slaves among his property, and the other person said: I do not want them, if their second master, i.e., the recipient, was a priest, they partake of teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as his protest is ignored. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Once the other person said: I do not want them, the giver or his heirs have already acquired them, and they are the slaves鈥 owners.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚 讜爪讜讜讞

And we discussed the baraita: And does the first tanna hold that he acquires them even if he is standing and shouting in protest that he does not want them? That is not reasonable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘爪讜讜讞 诪注讬拽专讜 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 砖转拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚拽谞讬

Rava says, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who says: In a case where he is shouting in protest at the outset, when he is given the gift, everyone agrees that he did not acquire them. In a case where he was silent at the time and ultimately shouted in protest, everyone agrees that he acquired them.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜砖转拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讚砖转讬拽 拽谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 爪讜讜讞 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

When they disagree it is in a case when he transfers ownership to him through another person, and the recipient was there and was silent, and ultimately, when he actually receives the slaves, he shouted in protest. As the first tanna holds that once he was initially silent, he acquired them, and the fact that he is shouting indicates that he is retracting his initial acceptance of the gift. His acquisition cannot be canceled in this manner. If he does not want to own the slaves, he can sell them, give them away, or emancipate them.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讛讜讻讬讞 住讜驻讜 注诇 转讞诇转讜 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 爪讜讜讞 注讚 讛砖转讗 讚住讘专 讻讬 诇讗 诪讟讜 诇讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讗爪讜讜讞

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that his ultimate actions prove the nature of his initial intent; he never intended to acquire the slaves. And the reason that he did not shout in protest until now is that he reasoned: As long as they did not enter my possession, to what end will I shout?

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘砖讟专 讝讜讻讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪讻讜诇诐

The Sages taught (Tosefta 9:6): If a person on his deathbed said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, and three hundred to so-and-so, and four hundred to so-and-so, in this case one does not say that whoever appears first in the deed acquires his money first. Therefore, if a promissory note emerged against the one who gave the gifts, and it becomes clear that the money given was pledged to a creditor, then the creditor collects from all of them.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞专讬讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞专讬讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜诪专讬谉 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘砖讟专 讝讜讻讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

But if a person on his deathbed said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, and after him, to so-and-so, and after him, to so-and-so, then one says: Anyone who appears first in the deed gains. Therefore, if a promissory note emerged against the giver, the creditor first collects from the last one of the recipients. If he does not have enough to repay the debt, he collects from the previous recipient. If he does not have enough to repay the debt, he collects from the recipient listed before the previous recipient.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 讘讻讜专转讜 讗诐 讗诪专 讘讘讻讜专转讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇谉 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇 讘讻讜专转讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: If there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my firstborn son, as is appropriate for him, the firstborn takes the two hundred dinars and takes his portion as a firstborn as well. If he said: Give my firstborn son two hundred dinars for his portion as a firstborn, he does not receive both, but he has the advantage; if he wants, he takes the two hundred dinars, and if he wants, he takes his portion as a firstborn.

讜砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬转 讗砖转讬 讻专讗讜讬 诇讛 谞讜讟诇转谉 讜谞讜讟诇转 讗转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诐 讗诪专 讘讻转讜讘转讛

The baraita continues: And similarly, if there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my wife, as is appropriate for her, she takes the two hundred dinars and takes payment of her marriage contract as well. If he said: Give her two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract,

讬讚讛 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇转谉 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛

she has the advantage; if she wants, she takes the two hundred dinars, and if she wants, she takes payment of her marriage contract.

讜砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讬 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讘讞讜讘讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讘讞讜讘讜

The baraita continues: And if there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my creditor, as is appropriate for him, the creditor takes the two hundred dinars and takes payment of the debt as well. But if he said: Give him two hundred dinars as payment for the debt, he takes the two hundred dinars as payment for the debt.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讜讚诇诪讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 讘讞讜讘讜 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Because he says: As is appropriate for him, he takes the two hundred dinars and takes payment of the debt as well? But perhaps he was saying: As is appropriate for him as payment for the debt, and meant only to specify the amount of the debt.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讚讬讬拽 诇讬砖谞讗 讬转讬专讗

Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna said to me: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who expounds superfluous language. Rabbi Akiva holds that if one uses unnecessary words, he apparently intended to add a matter.

讚转谞谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

As we learned in a mishna (64a): One who sells a house without specification has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut] with it, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale: With its depth and its height. This is because anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller鈥檚 possession. And therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱

And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house apart from the pit and the cistern, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜拽讗诪专 诇讟驻讜讬讬 诪诇转讗 拽讗转讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜拽讗诪专 诇讟驻讜讬讬 诪诇转讗 拽讗 讗转讬

Apparently, according to Rabbi Akiva, since he did not need to state: Apart from the pit and the cistern, and stated it anyway, the seemingly superfluous statement was coming to add a matter. Since the seller unnecessarily stressed that the pit and cistern are not included in the sale, he must have intended to thereby reserve for himself the right of access. Here too, with regard to the gift given by a person on his deathbed to his creditor, since he did not need to say: As is appropriate for him, and said it anyway, this phrase was coming to add a matter, i.e., that the two hundred dinars are in addition to the debt.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 诪谞讛 讬砖 诇讬 讗爪诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛注讚讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

The Sages taught (Tosefta 8:18): If there was a person on his deathbed who said: I have one hundred dinars owed to me by so-and-so, the witnesses that hear this may write his statement in a document even if they do not know whether the statement is true. Therefore, when the person鈥檚 heir collects the debt, he must bring proof of the debt, as the document written by these witnesses is not regarded as proof. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The witnesses may not write the document unless they know for a fact that the statement is true. Therefore, when the heir collects the debt, he need not bring proof other than the document written by the witnesses, as it has the status of a promissory note.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗祝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

Rav Na岣an says: Rav Huna told me that the opposite is taught in another baraita: Rabbi Meir says that the witnesses may not write his statement in a document unless they know for a fact that the statement is true, and the Rabbis say that they may write it even if they do not know whether the statement is true; and even Rabbi Meir said that they may not write it only due to the concern that it might be presented before a court that errs and allows the heirs to collect without furnishing additional proof. Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 says: The halakha is that there is no concern about the possibility of a court that errs.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪诪讗谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讜转讘讬谉 讙讟 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讙讟 诪讬讗讜谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from Rava鈥檚 statement? As Rava says: A court may not supervise 岣litza unless the judges recognize the yavam and yevama. And a court may not supervise a declaration of the refusal of a girl upon her reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father, unless they recognize the girl. Therefore, another court may write a document attesting to the performance of 岣litza or a document stating that a declaration of refusal was made in a court elsewhere based on the testimony of witnesses even if the judges do not recognize these people, relying on the presumption the first court would not have allowed the act to be performed had they not been sure of the identities of the parties.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

What is the reason Rava said that the court must recognize the participants in these actions? Is it not due to the concern that a court that errs might write such a document based on the testimony of witnesses without verifying that the participating parties were recognized by the court where the 岣litza or refusal took place?

诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 讘转专 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 讘转专 注讚讬诐 讚讬讬拽讬

The Gemara answers: The two issues are not the same. A court does not normally examine the act of another court, so there is concern that the court where the document is written might assume that the court where the act took place recognized the participating parties. But a court does normally examine the statement of witnesses. Therefore, there is no concern that it will rely on a statement written by witnesses without their knowledge of its accuracy.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 转讜诇砖 讜诪讗讻讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛 讜诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 转诇讜砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 讬讜专砖讬谉

MISHNA: 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鈥檚 heirs, not only to this son.

讙诪壮 转诇讜砖 讗讬谉 诪讞讜讘专 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna indicates that what the father left detached, yes, it is inherited by all the heirs; but the produce that is connected to the ground at the time of his death, no, it is not inherited by them. Rather, it belongs to the son who received the property.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 138

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 138

讻讗谉 讘爪讜讜讞 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讜转拽 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞

Here, in Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, it is a case where he is shouting in protest at the outset. As soon as he is given the deed of gift he states that he does not want it. In this case, he does not receive the property. There, in Shmuel鈥檚 statement, it is a case where he is initially silent when he receives the deed of gift, and is ultimately shouting in protest that he does not want it. In this case he acquires the gift before he protests, so it is his.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜砖转拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says that if the owner transfers ownership of the property to him through another person, who performs an act of acquisition for this other party in his presence, and he was initially silent, i.e., when the act of acquisition is performed, but ultimately shouted in protest when the property is actually given to him, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜转讘 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜讗诪专 讛诇讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讛谉 讗诐 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖谞讬 讻讛谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖讗诪专 讛诇讛 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讛谉 讻讘专 讝讻讜 讘讛谉 讬讜专砖讬谉

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:1): If one wrote a document granting his property to another, and there were slaves among his property, and the other person said: I do not want them, if their second master, i.e., the recipient, was a priest, they partake of teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as his protest is ignored. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Once the other person said: I do not want them, the giver or his heirs have already acquired them, and they are the slaves鈥 owners.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚 讜爪讜讜讞

And we discussed the baraita: And does the first tanna hold that he acquires them even if he is standing and shouting in protest that he does not want them? That is not reasonable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘爪讜讜讞 诪注讬拽专讜 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 砖转拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚拽谞讬

Rava says, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan who says: In a case where he is shouting in protest at the outset, when he is given the gift, everyone agrees that he did not acquire them. In a case where he was silent at the time and ultimately shouted in protest, everyone agrees that he acquired them.

讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讜砖转拽 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讜讜讞 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讚砖转讬拽 拽谞讬谞讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗 爪讜讜讞 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

When they disagree it is in a case when he transfers ownership to him through another person, and the recipient was there and was silent, and ultimately, when he actually receives the slaves, he shouted in protest. As the first tanna holds that once he was initially silent, he acquired them, and the fact that he is shouting indicates that he is retracting his initial acceptance of the gift. His acquisition cannot be canceled in this manner. If he does not want to own the slaves, he can sell them, give them away, or emancipate them.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讛讜讻讬讞 住讜驻讜 注诇 转讞诇转讜 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 爪讜讜讞 注讚 讛砖转讗 讚住讘专 讻讬 诇讗 诪讟讜 诇讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讗爪讜讜讞

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that his ultimate actions prove the nature of his initial intent; he never intended to acquire the slaves. And the reason that he did not shout in protest until now is that he reasoned: As long as they did not enter my possession, to what end will I shout?

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘砖讟专 讝讜讻讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪讻讜诇诐

The Sages taught (Tosefta 9:6): If a person on his deathbed said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, and three hundred to so-and-so, and four hundred to so-and-so, in this case one does not say that whoever appears first in the deed acquires his money first. Therefore, if a promissory note emerged against the one who gave the gifts, and it becomes clear that the money given was pledged to a creditor, then the creditor collects from all of them.

讗讘诇 讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞专讬讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗讞专讬讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗讜诪专讬谉 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘砖讟专 讝讜讻讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪谉 讛讗讞专讜谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖诇驻谞讬 驻谞讬讜

But if a person on his deathbed said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, and after him, to so-and-so, and after him, to so-and-so, then one says: Anyone who appears first in the deed gains. Therefore, if a promissory note emerged against the giver, the creditor first collects from the last one of the recipients. If he does not have enough to repay the debt, he collects from the previous recipient. If he does not have enough to repay the debt, he collects from the recipient listed before the previous recipient.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘谞讬 讘讻讜专 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 讘讻讜专转讜 讗诐 讗诪专 讘讘讻讜专转讜 讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇谉 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇 讘讻讜专转讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: If there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my firstborn son, as is appropriate for him, the firstborn takes the two hundred dinars and takes his portion as a firstborn as well. If he said: Give my firstborn son two hundred dinars for his portion as a firstborn, he does not receive both, but he has the advantage; if he wants, he takes the two hundred dinars, and if he wants, he takes his portion as a firstborn.

讜砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬转 讗砖转讬 讻专讗讜讬 诇讛 谞讜讟诇转谉 讜谞讜讟诇转 讗转 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诐 讗诪专 讘讻转讜讘转讛

The baraita continues: And similarly, if there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my wife, as is appropriate for her, she takes the two hundred dinars and takes payment of her marriage contract as well. If he said: Give her two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract,

讬讚讛 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇转谉 专爪讛 谞讜讟诇转 讻转讜讘转讛

she has the advantage; if she wants, she takes the two hundred dinars, and if she wants, she takes payment of her marriage contract.

讜砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 转谞讜 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘注诇 讞讜讘讬 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讘讞讜讘讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讘讞讜讘讜

The baraita continues: And if there was a person on his deathbed who said: Give two hundred dinars to so-and-so, my creditor, as is appropriate for him, the creditor takes the two hundred dinars and takes payment of the debt as well. But if he said: Give him two hundred dinars as payment for the debt, he takes the two hundred dinars as payment for the debt.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 谞讜讟诇谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讜讚诇诪讗 讻专讗讜讬 诇讜 讘讞讜讘讜 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Because he says: As is appropriate for him, he takes the two hundred dinars and takes payment of the debt as well? But perhaps he was saying: As is appropriate for him as payment for the debt, and meant only to specify the amount of the debt.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚讚讬讬拽 诇讬砖谞讗 讬转讬专讗

Rav Na岣an said: Rav Huna said to me: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who expounds superfluous language. Rabbi Akiva holds that if one uses unnecessary words, he apparently intended to add a matter.

讚转谞谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘讜专 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讚讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讘 诇讜 注讜诪拽讗 讜专讜诪讗 讜爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

As we learned in a mishna (64a): One who sells a house without specification has sold neither the pit nor the cistern [dut] with it, even if he writes for the buyer in the bill of sale: With its depth and its height. This is because anything that is not part of the house, like pits and cisterns, must be explicitly mentioned in the contract or else they remain in the seller鈥檚 possession. And therefore the seller must purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain to reach whatever remains his, because he has sold the area of the house along with the house itself, and he no longer has permission to walk there. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 诇讜 讞讜抓 诪讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讬拽讞 诇讜 讚专讱

And the Rabbis say: The seller need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain, as this is certainly included in what he has withheld for himself from the sale. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that when the seller says to the buyer in the bill of sale: I am selling you this house apart from the pit and the cistern, he need not purchase for himself a path through the buyer鈥檚 domain. Since the seller unnecessarily emphasized that the pit and the cistern are not included in the sale, he presumably intended to reserve for himself the right of access to them.

讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜拽讗诪专 诇讟驻讜讬讬 诪诇转讗 拽讗转讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 讜拽讗诪专 诇讟驻讜讬讬 诪诇转讗 拽讗 讗转讬

Apparently, according to Rabbi Akiva, since he did not need to state: Apart from the pit and the cistern, and stated it anyway, the seemingly superfluous statement was coming to add a matter. Since the seller unnecessarily stressed that the pit and cistern are not included in the sale, he must have intended to thereby reserve for himself the right of access. Here too, with regard to the gift given by a person on his deathbed to his creditor, since he did not need to say: As is appropriate for him, and said it anyway, this phrase was coming to add a matter, i.e., that the two hundred dinars are in addition to the debt.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 诪谞讛 讬砖 诇讬 讗爪诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讛注讚讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

The Sages taught (Tosefta 8:18): If there was a person on his deathbed who said: I have one hundred dinars owed to me by so-and-so, the witnesses that hear this may write his statement in a document even if they do not know whether the statement is true. Therefore, when the person鈥檚 heir collects the debt, he must bring proof of the debt, as the document written by these witnesses is not regarded as proof. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The witnesses may not write the document unless they know for a fact that the statement is true. Therefore, when the heir collects the debt, he need not bring proof other than the document written by the witnesses, as it has the status of a promissory note.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗祝 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

Rav Na岣an says: Rav Huna told me that the opposite is taught in another baraita: Rabbi Meir says that the witnesses may not write his statement in a document unless they know for a fact that the statement is true, and the Rabbis say that they may write it even if they do not know whether the statement is true; and even Rabbi Meir said that they may not write it only due to the concern that it might be presented before a court that errs and allows the heirs to collect without furnishing additional proof. Rav Dimi of Neharde鈥檃 says: The halakha is that there is no concern about the possibility of a court that errs.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 讞讜诇爪讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪诪讗谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪讻讬专讬谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讻讜转讘讬谉 讙讟 讞诇讬爪讛 讜讙讟 诪讬讗讜谉 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讻讬专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from Rava鈥檚 statement? As Rava says: A court may not supervise 岣litza unless the judges recognize the yavam and yevama. And a court may not supervise a declaration of the refusal of a girl upon her reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father, unless they recognize the girl. Therefore, another court may write a document attesting to the performance of 岣litza or a document stating that a declaration of refusal was made in a court elsewhere based on the testimony of witnesses even if the judges do not recognize these people, relying on the presumption the first court would not have allowed the act to be performed had they not been sure of the identities of the parties.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

What is the reason Rava said that the court must recognize the participants in these actions? Is it not due to the concern that a court that errs might write such a document based on the testimony of witnesses without verifying that the participating parties were recognized by the court where the 岣litza or refusal took place?

诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 讘转专 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讚讬讬拽讬 讘讬转 讚讬谞讗 讘转专 注讚讬诐 讚讬讬拽讬

The Gemara answers: The two issues are not the same. A court does not normally examine the act of another court, so there is concern that the court where the document is written might assume that the court where the act took place recognized the participating parties. But a court does normally examine the statement of witnesses. Therefore, there is no concern that it will rely on a statement written by witnesses without their knowledge of its accuracy.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 转讜诇砖 讜诪讗讻讬诇 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛 讜诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 转诇讜砖 讛专讬 讛讜讗 砖诇 讬讜专砖讬谉

MISHNA: 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鈥檚 heirs, not only to this son.

讙诪壮 转诇讜砖 讗讬谉 诪讞讜讘专 诇讗

GEMARA: The mishna indicates that what the father left detached, yes, it is inherited by all the heirs; but the produce that is connected to the ground at the time of his death, no, it is not inherited by them. Rather, it belongs to the son who received the property.

Scroll To Top