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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 14, 2017 | 讻壮 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 143

If one includes in one’s statement, I will be giving to you and your donkey, is the kinyan effective? 聽If one says, I will give my wife and my sons my possessions, does she get 50% or an equal share with all the sons?

讜讻专讻讬砖 讘讛 专讬砖讬讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讻讞诪讜专 诪讬 拽谞讬

and he nodded [vekharkeish] his head in the study hall in approval of this explanation. Rabbi Yirmeya went to Rabbi Avin, who said to him: Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 reasoning is that if a father said to his son: Acquire an item as a donkey does, does he acquire it? In the same manner that the son would not acquire anything if his acquisition were likened to that of a donkey, which possesses no ability to acquire an item, so too, since the father compared the son鈥檚 acquisition to the acquisition effected by his unborn children, who possess no ability to acquire property, the son did not acquire any property.

讚讗讬转诪专 拽谞讬 讻讞诪讜专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗转 讜讞诪讜专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽谞讛 诪讞爪讛 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 拽谞讛 讛讻诇

This is as it was stated: With regard to one who says to another: Acquire an item as a donkey does, he does not acquire any property, as a donkey cannot acquire property. But with regard to one who says: You and a donkey shall both acquire my property, there is a disagreement. Rav Na岣an says: The person acquires his half of the property, and Rav Hamnuna says: It is as though the giver does not say anything. Since the beneficiary was included with the donkey in the same acquisition, he does not acquire any property, just as the donkey does not acquire any property. Rav Sheshet says: The person acquires all the property. As the giver knew that a donkey cannot acquire property, he intended for the person, who was capable of acquiring property, to acquire all the property.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪专 讘拽讬砖讜转 讗诇讗 驻谞讬诪讬 砖讘讜 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 转讜专诐 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讛讞讬爪讜谉 砖讘讜 讜转讜专诐

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: There is nothing bitter in the cucumber other than its inner part, which is sometimes bitter and inedible and unfit to be separated as teruma. Therefore, since one does not know if the cucumber he separates as teruma is bitter inside, when he separates teruma, he adds part of another cucumber as teruma, in addition to the outer part of the cucumber, which is edible. And he separates both as teruma, thereby ensuring that the teruma consists of sufficient edible cucumber.

讗诪讗讬 讗转 讜讞诪讜专 讛讜讗

Rav Sheshet asks: Why does the separation of teruma take effect? Is it not analogous to one who states: You and a donkey shall acquire an item, since he designated as teruma both the outer part of the cucumber, which is fit to become teruma, and the inedible inner part, which is not fit to become teruma? Since this does not invalidate the separation of teruma with regard to the edible outer part, one can infer that although the donkey cannot acquire property, this does not prevent the person from acquiring the property.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转专讜诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara replies: It is different there, as by Torah law the bitter inner part is also properly considered teruma, even though by rabbinic law if one separated inferior produce as teruma he must again separate produce of superior quality as teruma. Therefore, when one designates the entire cucumber as teruma, he is not designating both fit and unfit produce.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

This is as Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: From where is it derived that the halakha with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce is that his teruma is valid teruma? It is as it is stated with regard to teruma: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). By inference, this indicates that it is a transgression to separate the inferior part of the produce as teruma. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 explains the proof: And if the inferior produce is not sanctified as teruma, why does it involve the bearing of sin, as it is a meaningless act? From here one can derive that that the halakha with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce is that although he acted improperly, his teruma is valid teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 诪注砖讛 讘讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 讜讘讛谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诇讬拽讟 讗讞讚 讻诇讻诇讛 砖诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜砖诇讛谉 讛讬转讛 讜砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讬转讛 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讻讜诇讻谉 诪拽讜讚砖讜转 诇讬 讘讻诇讻诇讛 讝讗转 讜拽讘诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讞讬讜转 诪拽讜讚砖讜转

搂 The Gemara cited Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion that if one says: You and a donkey shall acquire my property, he did not say anything. Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Rav Avya raises an objection to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Kiddushin 50b): An incident occurred involving five women, and among them were two sisters, and one person gathered a basket of figs that belonged to them, and the fruit was of the Sabbatical Year, and he said: You are hereby all betrothed to me with this basket, and one of them accepted it on behalf of all of them. The Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed, as it is prohibited to marry the sister of one鈥檚 wife during her lifetime.

讗讞讬讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诪拽讜讚砖讜转 讛讗 谞讻专讬讜转 诪拽讜讚砖讜转 讜讗诪讗讬 讗转 讜讞诪讜专 讛讬讗

One can infer from the mishna: It is only the sisters who are not betrothed, but the unrelated women are betrothed. But why is that so? It is analogous to one who states: You and a donkey shall acquire an item. Since he tried to betroth two women ineligible for betrothal together with the eligible women, the betrothal should not take effect even with regard to the eligible women.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讞讝讗讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讜讬讗 讘讞诇诪讗 讚诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讻诐 诇讘讬讗讛 转转拽讚砖 诇讬

Rav Ashi said to Rav Mordekhai: This is why I saw Rav Huna bar Avya in a dream, because you were going to tell me that Rav Avya raised an objection to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion. But as for this objection, didn鈥檛 we interpret the mishna in Kiddushin as referring to where he says: Those of you who are eligible for engaging in sexual intercourse with me shall be betrothed to me? Since the sisters were forbidden to him, they were not included in the betrothal in the first place, and there was no impediment to the betrothal of the eligible women taking effect. The case is therefore not comparable to the case discussed by Rav Hamnuna.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 谞讻住讬讬 诇讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽谞转讛 诪讞爪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪讞爪讛 诇讗讛专谉 诪讞爪讛 诇讘谞讬讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his wife: My property is given to you and to your sons. Rav Yosef says: In such a case, the wife acquires half of the property, even though the man did not specify how much of his property he was giving her. And Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states with regard to the shewbread: 鈥淎nd it shall be for Aaron and his sons鈥 (Leviticus 24:9). This means half for Aaron and half for his sons. One can infer from the baraita that when it is specified that a gift is to be divided between an individual and a group, the intention is that the individual receives half.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讛专谉 讘专 讞诇讜拽讛 讛讜讗 诇讛讻讬 驻专讟 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖拽诇 驻诇讙讗 讗砖讛 诇讗讜 讘转 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讚讬讛 砖转讟讜诇 讻讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, there, in the case of the shewbread, Aaron is eligible to receive a share of the shewbread as a priest; it is for this reason that the Merciful One specified him separately, so that he should take more than other priests, i.e., half. But with regard to a woman, who is not eligible to inherit her husband鈥檚 property, it is sufficient for her to receive a portion of the inheritance as one of the sons, not half of all the property.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗讙讘讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 驻诇讙讗 讘讟讘专讬讗 讜讗讙讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻诇讙讗 讜转讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讛讜讗 讚诪讬 讻诇讬诇讗 讚砖讚讜 讚讘讬 诪诇讻讗 讗讗讘讜诇讬 讜讗讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讬转讘讜 讗讘讜诇讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 驻诇讙讗

The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? But there was an incident in Neharde鈥檃 where a man gave a gift to an individual and to a group of people, and Shmuel collected half the sum for the individual. There was a similar case in Tiberias, and Rabbi Yo岣nan collected half the sum for the individual. And furthermore, when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was a certain coronation tax that was placed by the royal house on the city councilmen [a鈥檃bulei] and on the prominent citizens [ve鈥檃鈥檌sterugei]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Let the city councilmen give half and the prominent citizens half. This indicates that when two groups are mentioned together, the intent is that each one represents half.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 讻转讘讬 讗讗讘讜诇讬 讛讜讜 讻转讘讬 讜讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 讛讜讜 诪住讬讬注讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜讬讚注 诪诇讻讗 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 讛砖转讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 讻转讘讬 讗讗讘讜诇讬 讜讗讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛谞讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讛谞讬 驻诇讙讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: How can the case concerning the tax be compared to the other cases? There, initially, when they would write the writ of assessment, they would write that it was placed on the city councilmen alone. And the prominent citizens would assist them in raising the sum, and the king knew that they were assisting them. Therefore, now, the meaning of what they wrote: It is placed on the city councilmen and on the prominent citizens, is to say that these should give half of the tax, and those should give half.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讗讛 注砖专讜谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 ruling from a baraita (Tosefta, Mena岣t 12:7): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of one hundred tenths of an ephah in two vessels, he brings sixty-tenths in one vessel, and the remaining forty-tenths in one vessel, as no more than sixty-tenths may be brought in a single vessel.

讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬

And if he brought fifty-tenths in one vessel and fifty in one vessel, he fulfilled his obligation. One can infer from the baraita that after the fact, if he had brought fifty-tenths in each vessel, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but he may not do so ab initio. And if it should enter your mind to say that every case like this is divided half and half, it should be permitted to divide the meal-offering into equal halves even ab initio.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇拽专讘谉 讙讚讜诇 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讚讬讚注 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬讬转讬谞谉

The Gemara dismisses Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 objection: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the meal-offering, it is clear to us that this person initially intended to bring a large offering, and the reason that he said he will bring the offering in two vessels was that he knew that it is not possible to bring the entire offering in a single vessel. Therefore, we bring, in a single vessel, as much as it is possible to bring, which is sixty-tenths. In any other case it is possible that the division should be into two equal portions.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖讚讛 注谞讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef in three matters where he disagreed with Rabba: In the matter of dividing a field between brothers (see 12b); in the matter of whether certain actions are limited by the court session or by the topic of discussion in the court (see 114a); and in the matter of half, i.e., this matter, whether an unspecified division into two parts is divided into two equal halves.

讛讛讜讗 讚砖讚专 驻讬住拽讬 讚砖讬专讗讬 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 诇讘谞讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇转讗 讗讘诇 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇转讗 诇讻诇转讬讛 砖讚专 讜讗讬 讘谞转讬讛 诇讗 谞住讬讘谉 诇讗 砖讘拽 讘谞转讬讛 讜诪砖讚专 诇讻诇转讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites additional incidents concerning a gift whose method of division was not specified: There was a certain man who sent swaths of silk to his home as a gift. Rabbi Ami says that in such a case, those swaths that are suitable for the sons鈥 garments are given to the sons, and those that are suitable for the daughters鈥 garments are given to the daughters. The Gemara comments: We said this only when he does not have daughters-in-law, but if he has daughters-in-law, it is presumed that he sent it for his daughters-in-law. And if his daughters are not married, it is presumed that he does not forsake his daughters and send to his daughters-in-law, so the silk is given to his daughters.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讻住讬讬 诇讘谞讬讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘专讗 讜讘专转讗 诪讬 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专讗 讘谞讬讬 讜诇住诇讜拽讬 诇讘专转讗 诪注讬砖讜专 拽讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专讗 讘谞讬讬 讜诇诪讜砖讻讛 诇讘专转讗 讘诪转谞讛 拽讗转讬

There was a certain man who said to those surrounding him: I leave my property to my sons [levanai], and he had only a son and a daughter. The question was raised: Do people call a single son in the plural: My sons, and in his will he came to remove his daughter even from the tenth of his property that would rightfully be her dowry? Or perhaps people do not call a single son: My sons, and he came to include his daughter in the gift?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜讘谞讬 讚谉 讞砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 砖讛讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讻讞讜砖讬诐 砖诇 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘谞讬 驻诇讜讗 讗诇讬讗讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讗讬转谉 注讝专讬讛

Abaye said: Come and hear a proof that one does refer to a single son using the plural term sons, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Dan: Hushim鈥 (Genesis 46:23). Rava said to Abaye: Perhaps this verse should be understood as the school of 岣zkiyya taught, that Hushim is not the name of Dan鈥檚 son but that they, Dan鈥檚 sons, were as numerous as the groups [岣shim] of reeds. Rather, Rava said: One can prove this usage of the term sons in the verse: 鈥淎nd the sons of Pallu: Eliab鈥 (Numbers 26:8). Rav Yosef said: This can be proven from another verse: 鈥淎nd the sons of Ethan: Azariah鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:8).

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讻住讗讬 诇讘谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘专讗 讜讘专 讘专讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专 讘专讗 讘专讗 讗讜 诇讗 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专 讘专讗 讘专讗 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专 讘专讗 讘专讗 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讘谞讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐

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鈥檚 son. The question was raised: Do people call a grandson a son, or do they not? Rav 岣viva said: People call a grandson a son. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: People do not call a grandson a son. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi: With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from a certain person鈥檚 sons, it is permitted for him to derive benefit from the sons of that person鈥檚 sons, as they are not included in the term sons.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇讗诪爪注 讗诐 讗诪专讜 专讗讜 诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 讗讘讗 讛专讬 讗谞讜 注讜砖讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇注爪诪谉 讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讛砖讘讬讞讛 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讛 诇讗诪爪注 讗诐 讗诪专讛 专讗讜 诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讛专讬 讗谞讬 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讛砖讘讬讞讛 诇注爪诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who died and left behind adult and minor sons, if the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is distributed among all the heirs. If the adult sons said from the outset: See that which our father left behind; we are going to engage in business with our share of the property and profit from it, then they enhanced the property for themselves. And similarly, with regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between her and the heirs. If she said: See that which my husband left me; I am going to engage in business with my share and profit from it, then she enhanced the property for herself.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诪讞诪转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇注爪诪谉

GEMARA: Rav 岣viva, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, says in the name of Rava: They taught this halakha only with regard to where the property was enhanced on account of the property, i.e., the heirs invested money from the common inheritance in order to enhance the property, and their input was only in the management of its investment. But if the property was enhanced on their account, i.e., on account of the efforts or expenditure of the adult sons, the halakha is that they enhanced it for themselves.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina say: Even if their father left them nothing but

  • 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 143

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 143

讜讻专讻讬砖 讘讛 专讬砖讬讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗讝诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 讻讞诪讜专 诪讬 拽谞讬

and he nodded [vekharkeish] his head in the study hall in approval of this explanation. Rabbi Yirmeya went to Rabbi Avin, who said to him: Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 reasoning is that if a father said to his son: Acquire an item as a donkey does, does he acquire it? In the same manner that the son would not acquire anything if his acquisition were likened to that of a donkey, which possesses no ability to acquire an item, so too, since the father compared the son鈥檚 acquisition to the acquisition effected by his unborn children, who possess no ability to acquire property, the son did not acquire any property.

讚讗讬转诪专 拽谞讬 讻讞诪讜专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗转 讜讞诪讜专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽谞讛 诪讞爪讛 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 拽谞讛 讛讻诇

This is as it was stated: With regard to one who says to another: Acquire an item as a donkey does, he does not acquire any property, as a donkey cannot acquire property. But with regard to one who says: You and a donkey shall both acquire my property, there is a disagreement. Rav Na岣an says: The person acquires his half of the property, and Rav Hamnuna says: It is as though the giver does not say anything. Since the beneficiary was included with the donkey in the same acquisition, he does not acquire any property, just as the donkey does not acquire any property. Rav Sheshet says: The person acquires all the property. As the giver knew that a donkey cannot acquire property, he intended for the person, who was capable of acquiring property, to acquire all the property.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪专 讘拽讬砖讜转 讗诇讗 驻谞讬诪讬 砖讘讜 诇驻讬讻讱 讻砖讛讜讗 转讜专诐 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讛讞讬爪讜谉 砖讘讜 讜转讜专诐

Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: There is nothing bitter in the cucumber other than its inner part, which is sometimes bitter and inedible and unfit to be separated as teruma. Therefore, since one does not know if the cucumber he separates as teruma is bitter inside, when he separates teruma, he adds part of another cucumber as teruma, in addition to the outer part of the cucumber, which is edible. And he separates both as teruma, thereby ensuring that the teruma consists of sufficient edible cucumber.

讗诪讗讬 讗转 讜讞诪讜专 讛讜讗

Rav Sheshet asks: Why does the separation of teruma take effect? Is it not analogous to one who states: You and a donkey shall acquire an item, since he designated as teruma both the outer part of the cucumber, which is fit to become teruma, and the inedible inner part, which is not fit to become teruma? Since this does not invalidate the separation of teruma with regard to the edible outer part, one can infer that although the donkey cannot acquire property, this does not prevent the person from acquiring the property.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转专讜诪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara replies: It is different there, as by Torah law the bitter inner part is also properly considered teruma, even though by rabbinic law if one separated inferior produce as teruma he must again separate produce of superior quality as teruma. Therefore, when one designates the entire cucumber as teruma, he is not designating both fit and unfit produce.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 诪谞讬谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 转砖讗讜 注诇讬讜 讞讟讗 讘讛专讬诪讻诐 讗转 讞诇讘讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 谞砖讬讗讜转 讞讟讗 诇诪讛 诪讻讗谉 诇转讜专诐 诪谉 讛专注 注诇 讛讬驻讛 砖转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

This is as Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says: From where is it derived that the halakha with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce is that his teruma is valid teruma? It is as it is stated with regard to teruma: 鈥淎nd you shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that you have set apart from it the best thereof鈥 (Numbers 18:32). By inference, this indicates that it is a transgression to separate the inferior part of the produce as teruma. Rabbi Ile鈥檃 explains the proof: And if the inferior produce is not sanctified as teruma, why does it involve the bearing of sin, as it is a meaningless act? From here one can derive that that the halakha with regard to one who separates teruma from poor-quality produce for superior-quality produce is that although he acted improperly, his teruma is valid teruma.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 诪注砖讛 讘讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 讜讘讛谉 砖转讬 讗讞讬讜转 讜诇讬拽讟 讗讞讚 讻诇讻诇讛 砖诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜砖诇讛谉 讛讬转讛 讜砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讛讬转讛 讜讗诪专 讛专讬 讻讜诇讻谉 诪拽讜讚砖讜转 诇讬 讘讻诇讻诇讛 讝讗转 讜拽讘诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜诇谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讞讬讜转 诪拽讜讚砖讜转

搂 The Gemara cited Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion that if one says: You and a donkey shall acquire my property, he did not say anything. Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Rav Avya raises an objection to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Kiddushin 50b): An incident occurred involving five women, and among them were two sisters, and one person gathered a basket of figs that belonged to them, and the fruit was of the Sabbatical Year, and he said: You are hereby all betrothed to me with this basket, and one of them accepted it on behalf of all of them. The Sages said: The sisters are not betrothed, as it is prohibited to marry the sister of one鈥檚 wife during her lifetime.

讗讞讬讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诪拽讜讚砖讜转 讛讗 谞讻专讬讜转 诪拽讜讚砖讜转 讜讗诪讗讬 讗转 讜讞诪讜专 讛讬讗

One can infer from the mishna: It is only the sisters who are not betrothed, but the unrelated women are betrothed. But why is that so? It is analogous to one who states: You and a donkey shall acquire an item. Since he tried to betroth two women ineligible for betrothal together with the eligible women, the betrothal should not take effect even with regard to the eligible women.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讞讝讗讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讜讬讗 讘讞诇诪讗 讚诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讗讜讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗 诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讗讜讬讛 诪讻诐 诇讘讬讗讛 转转拽讚砖 诇讬

Rav Ashi said to Rav Mordekhai: This is why I saw Rav Huna bar Avya in a dream, because you were going to tell me that Rav Avya raised an objection to Rav Hamnuna鈥檚 opinion. But as for this objection, didn鈥檛 we interpret the mishna in Kiddushin as referring to where he says: Those of you who are eligible for engaging in sexual intercourse with me shall be betrothed to me? Since the sisters were forbidden to him, they were not included in the betrothal in the first place, and there was no impediment to the betrothal of the eligible women taking effect. The case is therefore not comparable to the case discussed by Rav Hamnuna.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 谞讻住讬讬 诇讬讱 讜诇讘谞讬讱 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽谞转讛 诪讞爪讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪讞爪讛 诇讗讛专谉 诪讞爪讛 诇讘谞讬讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to his wife: My property is given to you and to your sons. Rav Yosef says: In such a case, the wife acquires half of the property, even though the man did not specify how much of his property he was giving her. And Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states with regard to the shewbread: 鈥淎nd it shall be for Aaron and his sons鈥 (Leviticus 24:9). This means half for Aaron and half for his sons. One can infer from the baraita that when it is specified that a gift is to be divided between an individual and a group, the intention is that the individual receives half.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讛专谉 讘专 讞诇讜拽讛 讛讜讗 诇讛讻讬 驻专讟 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪砖拽诇 驻诇讙讗 讗砖讛 诇讗讜 讘转 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 讚讬讛 砖转讟讜诇 讻讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Granted, there, in the case of the shewbread, Aaron is eligible to receive a share of the shewbread as a priest; it is for this reason that the Merciful One specified him separately, so that he should take more than other priests, i.e., half. But with regard to a woman, who is not eligible to inherit her husband鈥檚 property, it is sufficient for her to receive a portion of the inheritance as one of the sons, not half of all the property.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 注讜讘讚讗 讛讜讛 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗讙讘讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 驻诇讙讗 讘讟讘专讬讗 讜讗讙讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻诇讙讗 讜转讜 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讛讜讗 讚诪讬 讻诇讬诇讗 讚砖讚讜 讚讘讬 诪诇讻讗 讗讗讘讜诇讬 讜讗讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讬转讘讜 讗讘讜诇讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 驻诇讙讗

The Gemara raises an objection: Is that so? But there was an incident in Neharde鈥檃 where a man gave a gift to an individual and to a group of people, and Shmuel collected half the sum for the individual. There was a similar case in Tiberias, and Rabbi Yo岣nan collected half the sum for the individual. And furthermore, when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was a certain coronation tax that was placed by the royal house on the city councilmen [a鈥檃bulei] and on the prominent citizens [ve鈥檃鈥檌sterugei]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Let the city councilmen give half and the prominent citizens half. This indicates that when two groups are mentioned together, the intent is that each one represents half.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讻讬 讛讜讜 讻转讘讬 讗讗讘讜诇讬 讛讜讜 讻转讘讬 讜讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 讛讜讜 诪住讬讬注讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜讬讚注 诪诇讻讗 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 讛砖转讗 诪讗讬 讚拽讗 讻转讘讬 讗讗讘讜诇讬 讜讗讗讬住讟专讜讙讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛谞讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讛谞讬 驻诇讙讗

The Gemara rejects this argument: How can the case concerning the tax be compared to the other cases? There, initially, when they would write the writ of assessment, they would write that it was placed on the city councilmen alone. And the prominent citizens would assist them in raising the sum, and the king knew that they were assisting them. Therefore, now, the meaning of what they wrote: It is placed on the city councilmen and on the prominent citizens, is to say that these should give half of the tax, and those should give half.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讗讛 注砖专讜谉 诇讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 诪讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讗专讘注讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 ruling from a baraita (Tosefta, Mena岣t 12:7): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of one hundred tenths of an ephah in two vessels, he brings sixty-tenths in one vessel, and the remaining forty-tenths in one vessel, as no more than sixty-tenths may be brought in a single vessel.

讜讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讞诪砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 驻诇讙讗 讜驻诇讙讗 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 谞诪讬

And if he brought fifty-tenths in one vessel and fifty in one vessel, he fulfilled his obligation. One can infer from the baraita that after the fact, if he had brought fifty-tenths in each vessel, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but he may not do so ab initio. And if it should enter your mind to say that every case like this is divided half and half, it should be permitted to divide the meal-offering into equal halves even ab initio.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬 讚讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇拽专讘谉 讙讚讜诇 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讚讬讚注 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讻诪讛 讚讗驻砖专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬讬转讬谞谉

The Gemara dismisses Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 objection: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the meal-offering, it is clear to us that this person initially intended to bring a large offering, and the reason that he said he will bring the offering in two vessels was that he knew that it is not possible to bring the entire offering in a single vessel. Therefore, we bring, in a single vessel, as much as it is possible to bring, which is sixty-tenths. In any other case it is possible that the division should be into two equal portions.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖讚讛 注谞讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef in three matters where he disagreed with Rabba: In the matter of dividing a field between brothers (see 12b); in the matter of whether certain actions are limited by the court session or by the topic of discussion in the court (see 114a); and in the matter of half, i.e., this matter, whether an unspecified division into two parts is divided into two equal halves.

讛讛讜讗 讚砖讚专 驻讬住拽讬 讚砖讬专讗讬 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘谞讬诐 诇讘谞讬诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讘谞讜转 诇讘谞讜转 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇转讗 讗讘诇 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇转讗 诇讻诇转讬讛 砖讚专 讜讗讬 讘谞转讬讛 诇讗 谞住讬讘谉 诇讗 砖讘拽 讘谞转讬讛 讜诪砖讚专 诇讻诇转讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites additional incidents concerning a gift whose method of division was not specified: There was a certain man who sent swaths of silk to his home as a gift. Rabbi Ami says that in such a case, those swaths that are suitable for the sons鈥 garments are given to the sons, and those that are suitable for the daughters鈥 garments are given to the daughters. The Gemara comments: We said this only when he does not have daughters-in-law, but if he has daughters-in-law, it is presumed that he sent it for his daughters-in-law. And if his daughters are not married, it is presumed that he does not forsake his daughters and send to his daughters-in-law, so the silk is given to his daughters.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讻住讬讬 诇讘谞讬讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘专讗 讜讘专转讗 诪讬 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专讗 讘谞讬讬 讜诇住诇讜拽讬 诇讘专转讗 诪注讬砖讜专 拽讗转讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专讗 讘谞讬讬 讜诇诪讜砖讻讛 诇讘专转讗 讘诪转谞讛 拽讗转讬

There was a certain man who said to those surrounding him: I leave my property to my sons [levanai], and he had only a son and a daughter. The question was raised: Do people call a single son in the plural: My sons, and in his will he came to remove his daughter even from the tenth of his property that would rightfully be her dowry? Or perhaps people do not call a single son: My sons, and he came to include his daughter in the gift?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 讜讘谞讬 讚谉 讞砖讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 砖讛讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讻讞讜砖讬诐 砖诇 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘谞讬 驻诇讜讗 讗诇讬讗讘 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讜讘谞讬 讗讬转谉 注讝专讬讛

Abaye said: Come and hear a proof that one does refer to a single son using the plural term sons, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Dan: Hushim鈥 (Genesis 46:23). Rava said to Abaye: Perhaps this verse should be understood as the school of 岣zkiyya taught, that Hushim is not the name of Dan鈥檚 son but that they, Dan鈥檚 sons, were as numerous as the groups [岣shim] of reeds. Rather, Rava said: One can prove this usage of the term sons in the verse: 鈥淎nd the sons of Pallu: Eliab鈥 (Numbers 26:8). Rav Yosef said: This can be proven from another verse: 鈥淎nd the sons of Ethan: Azariah鈥 (I聽Chronicles 2:8).

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 谞讻住讗讬 诇讘谞讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讘专讗 讜讘专 讘专讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专 讘专讗 讘专讗 讗讜 诇讗 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专 讘专讗 讘专讗 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽专讜 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讘专 讘专讗 讘专讗 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛诪讜讚专 讛谞讗讛 诪讘谞讬诐 诪讜转专 讘讘谞讬 讘谞讬诐

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鈥檚 son. The question was raised: Do people call a grandson a son, or do they not? Rav 岣viva said: People call a grandson a son. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: People do not call a grandson a son. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi: With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from a certain person鈥檚 sons, it is permitted for him to derive benefit from the sons of that person鈥檚 sons, as they are not included in the term sons.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讬讞 讘谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇讗诪爪注 讗诐 讗诪专讜 专讗讜 诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 讗讘讗 讛专讬 讗谞讜 注讜砖讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇注爪诪谉 讜讻谉 讛讗砖讛 砖讛砖讘讬讞讛 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛砖讘讬讞讛 诇讗诪爪注 讗诐 讗诪专讛 专讗讜 诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讛专讬 讗谞讬 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讛砖讘讬讞讛 诇注爪诪讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who died and left behind adult and minor sons, if the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is distributed among all the heirs. If the adult sons said from the outset: See that which our father left behind; we are going to engage in business with our share of the property and profit from it, then they enhanced the property for themselves. And similarly, with regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between her and the heirs. If she said: See that which my husband left me; I am going to engage in business with my share and profit from it, then she enhanced the property for herself.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诪讞诪转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讘诇 砖讘讞讜 谞讻住讬诐 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇注爪诪谉

GEMARA: Rav 岣viva, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, says in the name of Rava: They taught this halakha only with regard to where the property was enhanced on account of the property, i.e., the heirs invested money from the common inheritance in order to enhance the property, and their input was only in the management of its investment. But if the property was enhanced on their account, i.e., on account of the efforts or expenditure of the adult sons, the halakha is that they enhanced it for themselves.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina say: Even if their father left them nothing but

Scroll To Top