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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 15, 2017 | 讻状讗 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 144

How are estate profits divided if only some or one of the heirs invested either time or money in improving it? 聽What are the factors that affect the聽law? 聽What about doctor bills for one of the heirs – are they paid for from the sick person’s share or from everyone’s? 聽Reciprocal marriage gifts (which were common in those days and could be demanded in a court) – how are they divided? 聽On what do those laws depend? 聽Three cases are brought in which either no kinyan was done but an exception was made and it is considered as if a kinyan was done or where a document was written and yet we don’t do what it says int he document. 聽 These are called “halachot without a reason.”

讗讜讚讬讬谞讬 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注 讜讛讗 讗讜讚讬讬谞讬 讚诪讞诪转 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讚讬讬谞讬 讚诇谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诪爪讜 诪谞讟专讬 诇讛

a mortar [udaini], which people pay to use, the rent goes to the middle? But isn鈥檛 the profit accruing from a mortar considered profit accruing on his, i.e., the adult son鈥檚, own account, as the adult son must supervise its operation, and there is no outlay from the property? The Gemara dismisses this objection: A mortar is different, as for its typical use it can suffice with supervision, and even minors are able to supervise its use. Since the adults do not contribute anything more than the minors, they cannot demand a greater share of the profits.

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 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇注爪诪谉 专讘 住驻专讗 砖讘拽 讗讘讜讛 讝讜讝讬 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 注讘讚 讘讛讜 注讬住拽讗 讗转讜 讗讞讬 转讘注讜讛讜 讘讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讙讬专住讬讛 讜讟专讞 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara relates: Rav Safra鈥檚 father left him dinars. Rav Safra took them and entered into a business venture with them. His brothers came and charged him in a court of law before Rava, claiming their share of the profits. Rava said to them: Rav Safra is a great man; he does not abandon his studies and toil for others. It is therefore clear that if he invested the money, it was for his own profit, even if he did not explicitly declare so at the outset.

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 讗砖讛 讘谞讻住讬 讬转诪讬 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗砖讛 讬讜专砖转

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle. The Gemara asks: What is the deceased鈥檚 wife doing with the orphans鈥 property? What rights does she have to the property? Rav Yirmeya said: The mishna is referring to a wife who is an heiress, e.g., if she were the daughter of her husband鈥檚 brother, and both brothers died without leaving sons, in which case she inherits in her father鈥檚 stead.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讚专讻讛 诇诪讟专讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讻诪讜 讚驻专讬砖 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the halakha in this case is the same as with regard to any other heir? The Gemara replies: It is necessary to state this, lest you say that since it is not a woman鈥檚 way to toil to enhance property, then even though she did not expressly state that she is toiling for herself, it is considered as though she had expressly stated this. The mishna teaches us that only if she expressly stated this do the profits accrue to her.

讜讗诐 讗诪专讛 专讗讜 诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讛专讬谞讬 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讛砖讘讬讞讛 诇注爪诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘讬讞讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讗 讟专讞讗 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna teaches: And 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. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this, lest you say that since it is praiseworthy for her to enhance the property on behalf of the orphans, as people will say: See how she toils for the orphans, she relinquishes her right to the profits and they should divide them equally. The mishna teaches us that this is not the case.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诪砖讬讗 讗砖讛 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讘讘讬转 拽谞讗讜 讜讚讜拽讗 讙讚讜诇 讜讚讜拽讗 讘转讜诇讛 讜讚讜拽讗 讗砖转讜 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讚讜拽讗 砖讛砖讬讗讜 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi 岣nina says: In the case of one who marries a woman to his eldest son and arranges the wedding feast in a house that he designated for the purpose of the wedding canopy and the wedding feast, the son acquires the house as a gift. The Gemara notes: And this is the halakha specifically in the case of the eldest son, and specifically if he is marrying a virgin, and specifically when this woman is his first wife, and specifically when the father married him off first among his sons. When all these conditions exist, it is presumed that the father has a particular fondness toward the son, due to which he gave him the house.

驻砖讬讟讗 讬讬讞讚 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讘讬转 讜注诇讬讬讛 讘讬转 拽谞讛 注诇讬讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 讘讬转 讜讗讻住讚专讛 诪讛讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

The Gemara clarifies the details of this halakha: It is obvious that if his father designated a house for the son鈥檚 nuptials and there is an upper story above the house, the son acquired the house, but he did not acquire the upper story. If he designated a house for the son, and there is a portico [ve鈥檃khsadra] in front of the house, what is the halakha? If there were two houses, one within the other, and the inner one was designated for the son鈥檚 nuptials, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These questions shall stand unresolved.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讬讞讚 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讘讬转 讜讻诇讬 讘讬转 讻诇讬 讘讬转 拽谞讛 讘讬转 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讗讜爪专讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 诪讜谞讞 砖诐 谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讘讻讗 讚讬讜谞讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪讬爪讗 讚讛专住谞讗 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗谞住讘讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜转诇讗 诇讬讛 住谞讚诇讗 专讘 讗砖讬 谞住讘讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜转诇讗 诇讬讛 讗砖讬砖讗 讚诪砖讞讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If his father designated a house and furniture for his son鈥檚 nuptials, the son acquired the furniture, but he did not acquire the house. Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is referring to a case where his father鈥檚 storeroom was placed there. It is clear that just as his father did not intend to give him the storeroom, neither did he intend to give him the house. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if there is only a dovecote in the house that belongs to the father, the son does not acquire the house. Rav Yehuda and Rav Pappi say: Even if there is only a pot [atzitza] of small fried fish, the son does not acquire the house. Mar Zutra married off his son, and hung a sandal in the house, to indicate that he did not intend to give the house as a gift. Rav Ashi married off his son, and hung a jug [ashisha] of oil in the house.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛诇讻转讗 讘诇讗 讟注诪讗 讞讚讗 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛

Mar Zutra says: These three matters were instituted by the Sages as a halakha without any explanation of their process, i.e., they instituted these enactments despite the fact that the mechanism by which they function is unclear: One is this halakha with regard to the son acquiring the house designated for his nuptials. Another is that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who writes a deed granting all of his property to his wife renders her only a steward of his property, i.e., he intends only to put her in charge of the property and she does not acquire it. Another is that which Rav says: With regard to one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so, if this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that third person acquires it, without need of witnesses or a formal act of acquisition.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讬谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讗讜诪谞讜转 谞驻诇 诇讗诪爪注 讞诇讛 讜谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 诪砖诇 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: With regard to brothers who were also partners, and it occurred that one of them was summoned to public service, which is assessed per family, he was summoned from the middle, i.e., the profits or expenses of his service are divided among them. If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讛讗讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 诇讗讜诪谞讜转 讛诪诇讱 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖诪讬谞讜讛讜 讙讘讗讬 讗讜 驻讜诇诪讜住讟讜住 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讗讞讬谉 讗诐 诪讞诪转 注爪诪讜 诇注爪诪讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: This service mentioned in the mishna is referring to forced imperial service, but if one of the brothers engaged in a trade of his own volition, the profits are his alone. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:5): In the case of one of the brothers who was appointed as a tax collector or a military commander [polmustos], a position with the potential for profit, if he was appointed on account of all the brothers, as the procedure was to impress a representative from each family for this purpose, any profit accrues to all the brothers. If he was appointed on account of himself, the profit accrues to himself.

讗诐 诪讞诪转 讗讞讬谉 诇讗讞讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讞专讬祝 讟驻讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讜专驻讬讛 讙专讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that if he was appointed on account of all the brothers, then the profit accrues to all the brothers? The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where the brother appointed was sharper, i.e., more capable, than the other brothers. Lest you say that his sharpness caused him to be selected for the position, and he should receive all the profits, the baraita teaches us that his talent notwithstanding, since he was selected as a representative of the family, the profit accrues to all the brothers.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖谞讟诇 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗讜 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讜诪谞讜转 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗转讛 讗爪诇谞讜 讬砖 诇讱 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诐 讗讬谉 讗转讛 讗爪诇谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讝讜谞讜转

The Sages taught: With regard to one of the brothers, who took two hundred dinars from the common inheritance to support himself when he went to another place to study Torah or to learn a trade, the brothers can say to him: If you are here with us, you are entitled to sustenance along with us. If you are not here with us, you are not entitled to sustenance.

讜诇讬转讘讜 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讻转 讛讘讬转 讘专讜讘讛 讜诇讬转讘讜 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 讘专讻转 讛讘讬转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: But shouldn鈥檛 they give him his sustenance wherever he is? The Gemara answers: This ruling supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: The blessing of the house is in its abundance. This means that the extent to which blessing permeates a home is proportionate to the number of people who live there, and when many people live together the expenses per capita decrease. The Gemara asks: But shouldn鈥檛 they give him his sustenance according to the blessing of the house, i.e., the expenses he would incur even if he were in the house? The Gemara responds: Indeed, they are required to provide for those expenses that he would incur in any event.

讞诇讛 讜谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 诪砖诇 注爪诪讜 砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇讛 讘驻砖讬注讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜谞住 谞转专驻讗 诪谉 讛讗诪爪注 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘驻砖讬注讛 讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻诇 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪爪谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 爪谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 讘讚专讱 注拽砖 砖讜诪专 谞驻砖讜 讬专讞拽 诪讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. Ravin sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Ela: They taught this only in a case where he became ill through negligence. But if he became ill through circumstances beyond his control, the cost of the treatment is paid from the middle, i.e., from the common inheritance. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is considered negligence? This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina says: All occurrences that befall man are in the hand of Heaven except for colds and obstacles [pa岣m], from which one is able to protect himself, as it is stated: 鈥淐olds and snares are on the path of the crooked; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them鈥 (Proverbs 22:5).

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讞讬谉 砖注砖讜 诪拽爪转谉 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讞讝专讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讞讝专讛 诇讗诪爪注 砖讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讛砖讜诇讞 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 谞讙讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讙诪讬诇讜转 讞住讚讬诐

MISHNA: It was common practice for friends of a groom to give him gifts in order to help cover the expenses of the wedding feast. These gifts are known as gifts of groomsmen, and would be reciprocated in turn. While the groom and the groomsman were at times the recipient and the giver of the gifts, respectively, the gifts were at times provided by the father of the groomsman and received by the father of the groom. In the case of brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen in their father鈥檚 lifetime, which were provided by their father, when the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father鈥檚 death, when one of the brothers gets married, they are reciprocated to the middle, i.e., the gift is divided among the brothers. This is because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. But with regard to one who sends his friend jugs of wine or jugs of oil, a reciprocal gift is not collectible in court, because they are considered acts of kindness.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖诇讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇讜 谞砖转诇讞讛 诇讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诪谉 讛讗诪爪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞砖转诇讞讛 诇讗讘讬讜 转谞谉

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated to the middle, and the first clause of a baraita: If a father sent his son with gifts of groomsmen, when they are reciprocated when that son gets married, they are reciprocated to that son. If his father was sent gifts of groomsmen for the wedding of one of his sons, when they are reciprocated from the father鈥檚 estate, they are reciprocated from the middle, i.e., the cost of the gift is divided among the brothers. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When we learned the mishna as well, we learned it as teaching the halakha with regard to gifts of groomsmen that were sent to the father for the wedding of one of his sons, not with regard to gifts of groomsmen sent by the father.

讜讛讗 讗讞讬谉 砖注砖讜 诪拽爪转谉 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 诇诪拽爪转谉 讜讛讗 讞讝专讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讝专讛 诇讙讘讜转 谞讙讘讬转 诪讗诪爪注

The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches the halakha with regard to brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen. The Gemara responds: Emend the text of the mishna and teach it as saying: With regard to brothers, to some of whom gifts of groomsmen were brought. The Gemara objects: But the mishna explicitly teaches the halakha if the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated. The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: When it is collected from the brothers in return, it is collected from the middle.

专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诇讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇讜 砖诇讞 讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 住转诐 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇讗诪爪注

Rabbi Asi says: Even if the text of the mishna is not emended, it is not difficult and can be reconciled with the baraita. Here in the mishna it is referring to where the father sent the gifts of groomsmen without specifying which son should be ascribed credit for bringing the gifts. There in the baraita, it is referring to where the father specified that the credit for the gifts of groomsmen should be ascribed to a specific son, who receives gifts in return, as it is taught in another baraita: If his father sent gifts of groomsmen on his, i.e., the son鈥檚, behalf, then when the gift is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to him, i.e., to that specific son. If his father sent gifts of groomsmen without specification, then when the gift is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to the middle.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讬讘诐 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

And Shmuel says: Here in the mishna we are dealing with a man whose married brother died childless [yavam]. The son who brought the gifts of groomsmen died childless, his brother entered into levirate marriage with the widow, and the gifts of groomsmen were reciprocated at the wedding of the yavam. Although the yavam inherits the property of his brother, since the reciprocal gifts were not extant when his brother died, they do not belong solely to him; rather, they are divided among the brothers. This is because the yavam does not take in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased already possessed.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讚讱 诪砖诇诐 诇讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

The Gemara asks: Is it possible to conclude by inference from Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the other side, i.e., a friend who had received gifts of groomsmen from the deceased, is obligated to repay the gifts of groomsmen he received from the deceased? Why should this be so? Let him say: Give me my groomsman and I will rejoice with him. Since the one who gave him the gifts is deceased, he is not obligated to reciprocate.

诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诪转 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专

Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesa岣m 3:1) with regard to similar circumstances: In a place where people are accustomed to return the betrothal money when the betrothed man or woman dies, they return it; in a place where people are accustomed not to return it, they do not return it. And Rav Yosef bar Abba says that Mar Ukva says that Shmuel says: They taught this only with regard to when the woman dies, in which case one follows the local custom. But if the man dies, all agree that they do not return the money. What is the reason for this? Since she can say:

  • 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 144

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 144

讗讜讚讬讬谞讬 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注 讜讛讗 讗讜讚讬讬谞讬 讚诪讞诪转 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讚讬讬谞讬 讚诇谞讟讬专讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诪爪讜 诪谞讟专讬 诇讛

a mortar [udaini], which people pay to use, the rent goes to the middle? But isn鈥檛 the profit accruing from a mortar considered profit accruing on his, i.e., the adult son鈥檚, own account, as the adult son must supervise its operation, and there is no outlay from the property? The Gemara dismisses this objection: A mortar is different, as for its typical use it can suffice with supervision, and even minors are able to supervise its use. Since the adults do not contribute anything more than the minors, they cannot demand a greater share of the profits.

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 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛砖讘讬讞讜 诇注爪诪谉 专讘 住驻专讗 砖讘拽 讗讘讜讛 讝讜讝讬 砖拽诇讬谞讛讜 注讘讚 讘讛讜 注讬住拽讗 讗转讜 讗讞讬 转讘注讜讛讜 讘讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讙讬专住讬讛 讜讟专讞 诇讗讞专讬谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara relates: Rav Safra鈥檚 father left him dinars. Rav Safra took them and entered into a business venture with them. His brothers came and charged him in a court of law before Rava, claiming their share of the profits. Rava said to them: Rav Safra is a great man; he does not abandon his studies and toil for others. It is therefore clear that if he invested the money, it was for his own profit, even if he did not explicitly declare so at the outset.

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 讗砖讛 讘谞讻住讬 讬转诪讬 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗砖讛 讬讜专砖转

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle. The Gemara asks: What is the deceased鈥檚 wife doing with the orphans鈥 property? What rights does she have to the property? Rav Yirmeya said: The mishna is referring to a wife who is an heiress, e.g., if she were the daughter of her husband鈥檚 brother, and both brothers died without leaving sons, in which case she inherits in her father鈥檚 stead.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讚专讻讛 诇诪讟专讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 驻专讬砖 讻诪讜 讚驻专讬砖 讚诪讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the halakha in this case is the same as with regard to any other heir? The Gemara replies: It is necessary to state this, lest you say that since it is not a woman鈥檚 way to toil to enhance property, then even though she did not expressly state that she is toiling for herself, it is considered as though she had expressly stated this. The mishna teaches us that only if she expressly stated this do the profits accrue to her.

讜讗诐 讗诪专讛 专讗讜 诪讛 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讛专讬谞讬 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇转 讛砖讘讬讞讛 诇注爪诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘讬讞讗 诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽讗 讟专讞讗 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The mishna teaches: And 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. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this, lest you say that since it is praiseworthy for her to enhance the property on behalf of the orphans, as people will say: See how she toils for the orphans, she relinquishes her right to the profits and they should divide them equally. The mishna teaches us that this is not the case.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诪砖讬讗 讗砖讛 诇讘谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讘讘讬转 拽谞讗讜 讜讚讜拽讗 讙讚讜诇 讜讚讜拽讗 讘转讜诇讛 讜讚讜拽讗 讗砖转讜 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讚讜拽讗 砖讛砖讬讗讜 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi 岣nina says: In the case of one who marries a woman to his eldest son and arranges the wedding feast in a house that he designated for the purpose of the wedding canopy and the wedding feast, the son acquires the house as a gift. The Gemara notes: And this is the halakha specifically in the case of the eldest son, and specifically if he is marrying a virgin, and specifically when this woman is his first wife, and specifically when the father married him off first among his sons. When all these conditions exist, it is presumed that the father has a particular fondness toward the son, due to which he gave him the house.

驻砖讬讟讗 讬讬讞讚 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讘讬转 讜注诇讬讬讛 讘讬转 拽谞讛 注诇讬讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讛 讘讬转 讜讗讻住讚专讛 诪讛讜 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讝讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讝讛 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜

The Gemara clarifies the details of this halakha: It is obvious that if his father designated a house for the son鈥檚 nuptials and there is an upper story above the house, the son acquired the house, but he did not acquire the upper story. If he designated a house for the son, and there is a portico [ve鈥檃khsadra] in front of the house, what is the halakha? If there were two houses, one within the other, and the inner one was designated for the son鈥檚 nuptials, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: These questions shall stand unresolved.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讬讞讚 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 讘讬转 讜讻诇讬 讘讬转 讻诇讬 讘讬转 拽谞讛 讘讬转 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讗讜爪专讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 诪讜谞讞 砖诐 谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜讘讻讗 讚讬讜谞讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 驻驻讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪讬爪讗 讚讛专住谞讗 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗谞住讘讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜转诇讗 诇讬讛 住谞讚诇讗 专讘 讗砖讬 谞住讘讬讛 诇讘专讬讛 讜转诇讗 诇讬讛 讗砖讬砖讗 讚诪砖讞讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If his father designated a house and furniture for his son鈥檚 nuptials, the son acquired the furniture, but he did not acquire the house. Rabbi Yirmeya says: This is referring to a case where his father鈥檚 storeroom was placed there. It is clear that just as his father did not intend to give him the storeroom, neither did he intend to give him the house. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if there is only a dovecote in the house that belongs to the father, the son does not acquire the house. Rav Yehuda and Rav Pappi say: Even if there is only a pot [atzitza] of small fried fish, the son does not acquire the house. Mar Zutra married off his son, and hung a sandal in the house, to indicate that he did not intend to give the house as a gift. Rav Ashi married off his son, and hung a jug [ashisha] of oil in the house.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 砖讜讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 讻讛诇讻转讗 讘诇讗 讟注诪讗 讞讚讗 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讗 讗讬讚讱 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 转谞讛讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 拽谞讛

Mar Zutra says: These three matters were instituted by the Sages as a halakha without any explanation of their process, i.e., they instituted these enactments despite the fact that the mechanism by which they function is unclear: One is this halakha with regard to the son acquiring the house designated for his nuptials. Another is that which Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who writes a deed granting all of his property to his wife renders her only a steward of his property, i.e., he intends only to put her in charge of the property and she does not acquire it. Another is that which Rav says: With regard to one who says to another: I have one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so, if this occurred in the presence of all three parties, that third person acquires it, without need of witnesses or a formal act of acquisition.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讬谉 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 砖谞驻诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讗讜诪谞讜转 谞驻诇 诇讗诪爪注 讞诇讛 讜谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 诪砖诇 注爪诪讜

MISHNA: With regard to brothers who were also partners, and it occurred that one of them was summoned to public service, which is assessed per family, he was summoned from the middle, i.e., the profits or expenses of his service are divided among them. If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讛讗讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 诇讗讜诪谞讜转 讛诪诇讱 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖诪讬谞讜讛讜 讙讘讗讬 讗讜 驻讜诇诪讜住讟讜住 讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讗讞讬谉 讗诐 诪讞诪转 注爪诪讜 诇注爪诪讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: This service mentioned in the mishna is referring to forced imperial service, but if one of the brothers engaged in a trade of his own volition, the profits are his alone. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:5): In the case of one of the brothers who was appointed as a tax collector or a military commander [polmustos], a position with the potential for profit, if he was appointed on account of all the brothers, as the procedure was to impress a representative from each family for this purpose, any profit accrues to all the brothers. If he was appointed on account of himself, the profit accrues to himself.

讗诐 诪讞诪转 讗讞讬谉 诇讗讞讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讞专讬祝 讟驻讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讞讜专驻讬讛 讙专讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that if he was appointed on account of all the brothers, then the profit accrues to all the brothers? The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where the brother appointed was sharper, i.e., more capable, than the other brothers. Lest you say that his sharpness caused him to be selected for the position, and he should receive all the profits, the baraita teaches us that his talent notwithstanding, since he was selected as a representative of the family, the profit accrues to all the brothers.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讗讞讬谉 砖谞讟诇 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 诇诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗讜 诇诇诪讜讚 讗讜诪谞讜转 讬讻讜诇讬谉 讛讗讞讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讗诐 讗转讛 讗爪诇谞讜 讬砖 诇讱 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗诐 讗讬谉 讗转讛 讗爪诇谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 诪讝讜谞讜转

The Sages taught: With regard to one of the brothers, who took two hundred dinars from the common inheritance to support himself when he went to another place to study Torah or to learn a trade, the brothers can say to him: If you are here with us, you are entitled to sustenance along with us. If you are not here with us, you are not entitled to sustenance.

讜诇讬转讘讜 诇讬讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讻转 讛讘讬转 讘专讜讘讛 讜诇讬转讘讜 诇讬讛 诇驻讬 讘专讻转 讛讘讬转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: But shouldn鈥檛 they give him his sustenance wherever he is? The Gemara answers: This ruling supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: The blessing of the house is in its abundance. This means that the extent to which blessing permeates a home is proportionate to the number of people who live there, and when many people live together the expenses per capita decrease. The Gemara asks: But shouldn鈥檛 they give him his sustenance according to the blessing of the house, i.e., the expenses he would incur even if he were in the house? The Gemara responds: Indeed, they are required to provide for those expenses that he would incur in any event.

讞诇讛 讜谞转专驻讗 谞转专驻讗 诪砖诇 注爪诪讜 砖诇讞 专讘讬谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞诇讛 讘驻砖讬注讛 讗讘诇 讘讗讜谞住 谞转专驻讗 诪谉 讛讗诪爪注 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讘驻砖讬注讛 讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讻诇 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讞讜抓 诪爪谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 爪谞讬诐 驻讞讬诐 讘讚专讱 注拽砖 砖讜诪专 谞驻砖讜 讬专讞拽 诪讛诐

搂 The mishna teaches: If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. Ravin sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Ela: They taught this only in a case where he became ill through negligence. But if he became ill through circumstances beyond his control, the cost of the treatment is paid from the middle, i.e., from the common inheritance. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is considered negligence? This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi 岣nina, as Rabbi 岣nina says: All occurrences that befall man are in the hand of Heaven except for colds and obstacles [pa岣m], from which one is able to protect himself, as it is stated: 鈥淐olds and snares are on the path of the crooked; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them鈥 (Proverbs 22:5).

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讞讬谉 砖注砖讜 诪拽爪转谉 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讘讞讬讬 讛讗讘 讞讝专讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讞讝专讛 诇讗诪爪注 砖讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讘诇 讛砖讜诇讞 诇讞讘讬专讜 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讗讬谉 谞讙讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讙诪讬诇讜转 讞住讚讬诐

MISHNA: It was common practice for friends of a groom to give him gifts in order to help cover the expenses of the wedding feast. These gifts are known as gifts of groomsmen, and would be reciprocated in turn. While the groom and the groomsman were at times the recipient and the giver of the gifts, respectively, the gifts were at times provided by the father of the groomsman and received by the father of the groom. In the case of brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen in their father鈥檚 lifetime, which were provided by their father, when the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father鈥檚 death, when one of the brothers gets married, they are reciprocated to the middle, i.e., the gift is divided among the brothers. This is because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. But with regard to one who sends his friend jugs of wine or jugs of oil, a reciprocal gift is not collectible in court, because they are considered acts of kindness.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 砖诇讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇讜 谞砖转诇讞讛 诇讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诪谉 讛讗诪爪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞砖转诇讞讛 诇讗讘讬讜 转谞谉

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the mishna鈥檚 ruling that the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated to the middle, and the first clause of a baraita: If a father sent his son with gifts of groomsmen, when they are reciprocated when that son gets married, they are reciprocated to that son. If his father was sent gifts of groomsmen for the wedding of one of his sons, when they are reciprocated from the father鈥檚 estate, they are reciprocated from the middle, i.e., the cost of the gift is divided among the brothers. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: When we learned the mishna as well, we learned it as teaching the halakha with regard to gifts of groomsmen that were sent to the father for the wedding of one of his sons, not with regard to gifts of groomsmen sent by the father.

讜讛讗 讗讞讬谉 砖注砖讜 诪拽爪转谉 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 诇诪拽爪转谉 讜讛讗 讞讝专讛 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞讝专讛 诇讙讘讜转 谞讙讘讬转 诪讗诪爪注

The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches the halakha with regard to brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen. The Gemara responds: Emend the text of the mishna and teach it as saying: With regard to brothers, to some of whom gifts of groomsmen were brought. The Gemara objects: But the mishna explicitly teaches the halakha if the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated. The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: When it is collected from the brothers in return, it is collected from the middle.

专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 砖诇讞 诇讜 讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇讜 砖诇讞 讗讘讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 住转诐 讻砖讛讬讗 讞讜讝专转 讞讜讝专转 诇讗诪爪注

Rabbi Asi says: Even if the text of the mishna is not emended, it is not difficult and can be reconciled with the baraita. Here in the mishna it is referring to where the father sent the gifts of groomsmen without specifying which son should be ascribed credit for bringing the gifts. There in the baraita, it is referring to where the father specified that the credit for the gifts of groomsmen should be ascribed to a specific son, who receives gifts in return, as it is taught in another baraita: If his father sent gifts of groomsmen on his, i.e., the son鈥檚, behalf, then when the gift is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to him, i.e., to that specific son. If his father sent gifts of groomsmen without specification, then when the gift is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to the middle.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讛讻讗 讘讬讘诐 注住拽讬谞谉 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

And Shmuel says: Here in the mishna we are dealing with a man whose married brother died childless [yavam]. The son who brought the gifts of groomsmen died childless, his brother entered into levirate marriage with the widow, and the gifts of groomsmen were reciprocated at the wedding of the yavam. Although the yavam inherits the property of his brother, since the reciprocal gifts were not extant when his brother died, they do not belong solely to him; rather, they are divided among the brothers. This is because the yavam does not take in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased already possessed.

诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讚讱 诪砖诇诐 诇讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

The Gemara asks: Is it possible to conclude by inference from Shmuel鈥檚 statement that the other side, i.e., a friend who had received gifts of groomsmen from the deceased, is obligated to repay the gifts of groomsmen he received from the deceased? Why should this be so? Let him say: Give me my groomsman and I will rejoice with him. Since the one who gave him the gifts is deceased, he is not obligated to reciprocate.

诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 诪转 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 砖转讗诪专

Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesa岣m 3:1) with regard to similar circumstances: In a place where people are accustomed to return the betrothal money when the betrothed man or woman dies, they return it; in a place where people are accustomed not to return it, they do not return it. And Rav Yosef bar Abba says that Mar Ukva says that Shmuel says: They taught this only with regard to when the woman dies, in which case one follows the local custom. But if the man dies, all agree that they do not return the money. What is the reason for this? Since she can say:

Scroll To Top