Bava Batra 145
״תְּנוּ לִי בַּעְלִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״. הָכָא נָמֵי, נֵימָא: ״תְּנוּ לִי שׁוֹשְׁבִינִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״!
Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, i.e., it is not my fault that we are not getting married, she is not required to return the betrothal money. Here too, let him say: Give me my groomsman and I will rejoice with him.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׂמַח עִמּוֹ שִׁבְעָה יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְפוֹרְעוֹ עַד שֶׁמֵּת.
Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? Shmuel’s statement is referring to a case where the original recipient, in reciprocation, rejoiced with the brother who brought the gifts of groomsmen during the seven days of the wedding feast, but did not suffice to repay him before the brother died. Since it was the usual practice to send the gifts of groomsmen after the groomsman rejoiced with the betrothed man for seven days, he is obligated to reciprocate the gifts of groomsmen, and the yavam cannot claim them for himself.
לֵימָא ״תְּנוּ לִי בַּעְלִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״ – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְאָרֵס אֶת הָאִשָּׁה; בְּתוּלָה – גּוֹבָה מָאתַיִם, וְאַלְמָנָה – מָנֶה. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר קִדּוּשִׁין – מַחְזִירִין, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַחְזִיר קִדּוּשִׁין – אֵין מַחְזִירִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נָתָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא אוֹמֵר, בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר – מַחְזִירִין, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַחְזִיר – אֵין מַחְזִירִין.
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Shmuel’s statement that a betrothed woman can claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, is a dispute between tanna’im? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betrothed a woman and then he divorces her or dies, if she is a virgin, she collects two hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract. And if she is a widow, she collects one hundred dinars. In a place where people were accustomed to return the betrothal money when the betrothed man or woman died, they return it. In a place where people were accustomed not to return the betrothal money, they do not return it. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Actually they said: In a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return it, they do not return it.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! אֶלָּא לָאו ״תְּנוּ לִי בַּעְלִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ –
The Gemara clarifies: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is identical to the opinion of the first tanna, i.e., Rabbi Natan. Rather, is it not that the difference between them concerns the validity of the claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him?
וְחַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַמְאָרֵס אֶת הָאִשָּׁה, בְּתוּלָה – גּוֹבָה מָאתַיִם, וְאַלְמָנָה – מָנֶה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ אִיהוּ; אֲבָל מֵתָה – מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר, מַחְזִירִין; מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַחְזִיר, אֵין מַחְזִירִין. וְדַוְקָא שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא, אֲבָל מֵת הוּא – אֵין מַחְזִירִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״תְּנוּ לִי בַּעְלִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״.
And the statement in the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: With regard to one who betrothed a woman and then the betrothal is terminated, if she is a virgin, she collects two hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, and if she is a widow, she collects one hundred dinars. In what case is this statement said? It is said where he retracted, i.e., he died or divorced her. But with regard to where she died, the halakha is as follows: In a place where people were accustomed to return the betrothal money, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return the betrothal money, they do not return it. And this applies specifically to where she died; but if he died, they do not return it. What is the reason for this? It is because she can say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him. This is the statement of Rabbi Natan.
וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא לְמֵימַר, בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ: בֵּין מֵת הוּא, וּבֵין מֵתָה הִיא; מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר – מַחְזִירִין, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַחְזִיר – אֵין מַחְזִירִין; וְלָא מָצְיָא אָמְרָה: ״תְּנוּ לִי בַּעְלִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״!
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to say: Actually they said: Whether he died or whether she died, in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it; in a place where people were accustomed not to return it, they do not return it, and she cannot say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him.
לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יְכוֹלָה שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״תְּנוּ לִי בַּעְלִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״. וּדְמִית הוּא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא; וְהָכָא בְּקִדּוּשִׁין לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – רַבִּי נָתָן סָבַר: קִדּוּשִׁין לָאו לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הַנָּשִׂיא סָבַר: קִדּוּשִׁין לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, everyone agrees that she can say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, and in a case where he died, everyone agrees that she does not have to return the betrothal money. They disagree in a case where she died, and here it is with regard to the question of whether betrothal money is given as a sunk cost, i.e., that it is not returned even if the betrothal is not consummated, that they disagree. Rabbi Natan holds that betrothal money is not given as a sunk cost, and in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that betrothal money is given as a sunk cost.
וְהָא ״מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר מַחְזִירִין״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְסִבְלוֹנוֹת – וַדַּאי מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר, מַחֲזִירִין.
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the baraita teach that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, in a place where people were accustomed to return it, they return it? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the betrothal money was given as a sunk cost. The Gemara replies: This is not referring to the betrothal money, which is not returned in any event. This is what the baraita is saying: But with regard to presents, which the betrothed man sent his betrothed following the betrothal, certainly in a place where people were accustomed to return them, they return them.
וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי – כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּכִכָּר – בְּתוּלָה גּוֹבָה מָאתַיִם, וְאַלְמָנָה מָנֶה; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּתוּלָה גּוֹבָה מָאתַיִם, וְאַלְמָנָה מָנֶה; וּמַחְזֶרֶת לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים – נוֹתֵן לָהּ שְׁלֹשִׁים חֲצָאִין. קִדְּשָׁהּ בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים – נוֹתֵן לָהּ עֶשְׂרִים חֲצָאִין.
The Gemara notes: The dispute between these tanna’im, in the following baraita, is like the dispute between those tanna’im just mentioned, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where the man betrothed a woman with a talent of silver, equivalent to six thousand dinars, if she was a virgin she collects in payment of her marriage contract two hundred dinars over and above this amount, and if she was a widow she collects one hundred dinars over and above this amount. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A virgin collects two hundred dinars and a widow one hundred dinars, and she returns the rest of the betrothal money to him. Rabbi Yosei says: If he betrothed her with twenty, he gives her thirty halves; if he betrothed her with thirty, he gives her twenty halves, as the Gemara will explain.
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא שֶׁמֵּתָה, מִי אִית לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה?! וְאֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּת הוּא – אַמַּאי מַחְזֶרֶת לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר? וְנֵימָא: ״תְּנוּ לִי בַּעְלִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ״! וְאֶלָּא בְּאֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁזִּינְּתָה. וּבְמַאי? אִי בְּרָצוֹן – מִי אִית לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה? וְאֶלָּא בְּאוֹנֶס – מִישְׁרֵא שַׁרְיָא לֵיהּ!
The Gemara clarifies the baraita: With what are we dealing? If we say the baraita is referring to when she died, is she entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? Rather, perhaps the baraita is referring to where he died, in which case why does Rabbi Yehuda state that she returns the rest of the betrothal money to him? Let her say: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him. Rather, perhaps the baraita is referring to the case of the wife, i.e., the betrothed, of an Israelite, who committed adultery, who cannot claim that she is available to marry her betrothed, as it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with him. The Gemara challenges: This is also difficult, as with what circumstance is the baraita dealing? If it is referring to where she committed adultery willingly, is she entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? Rather, it is referring to a case of rape. But in that case, she is permitted to him. Why should she return the betrothal money?
וְאֶלָּא בְּאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה, וּבְקִדּוּשִׁין לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ קָמִיפַּלְגִי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: קִדּוּשִׁין לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לָאו לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי לְטִיבּוּעִין נִיתְּנוּ אִי לָא,
Rather, the baraita is referring to the wife, i.e., the betrothed, of a priest, who was raped and is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her betrothed. She therefore cannot claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, yet she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract, and the tanna’im disagree with regard to whether betrothal money is given as a sunk cost: Rabbi Meir holds that betrothal money is given as a sunk cost. Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is not given as a sunk cost. And Rabbi Yosei is uncertain if it is given as a sunk cost or not.
וְהִלְכָּךְ קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים – נוֹתֵן לָהּ שְׁלֹשִׁים חֲצָאִין. קִדְּשָׁהּ בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים – נוֹתֵן לָהּ עֶשְׂרִים חֲצָאִין.
The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: And since it is uncertain whether or not she is required to return the betrothal money, therefore, she returns only half the money: If he betrothed her with twenty sela, which are equivalent to eighty dinars, she owes him forty dinars. Yet, if she is widowed or divorced, she is entitled to one hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, so he or his estate gives her thirty halves of a sela, which are equivalent to sixty dinars, so that she receives one hundred dinars in all. If he betrothed her with thirty sela, which are equivalent to one hundred twenty dinars, she owes him sixty dinars. Since she is entitled to one hundred dinars in payment of her marriage contract, he gives her twenty halves of a sela, equivalent to forty dinars.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר – מַחְזִירִין. וְתַרְגּוּמָא: נְהַרְדְּעָא. שְׁאָר בָּבֶל מַאי? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוּהְרֵי הָדְרִי, קִדּוּשֵׁי לָא הָדְרִי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הִלְכְתָא: בֵּין שֶׁמֵּת הוּא, בֵּין שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא, וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ הוּא – מוּהְרֵי הָדְרִי, קִדּוּשֵׁי לָא הָדְרִי. הֲדַרָא בָּהּ אִיהִי – אֲפִילּוּ קִדּוּשֵׁי נָמֵי הָדְרִי.
Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: In every place where they were accustomed to return the betrothal money, they return it. And the interpretation of this statement is that it is referring to Neharde’a. The Gemara asks: With regard to the rest of Babylonia, what is the halakha? Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: The presents are returned and the betrothal money is not returned. Rav Pappa said: The halakha is that whether he died or whether she died or whether he retracted his agreement to the betrothal and divorced her, the presents are returned and the betrothal money is not returned. If she retracted her agreement to the betrothal and requested a divorce, even the betrothal money is returned.
אַמֵּימָר אָמַר: קִדּוּשֵׁי לָא הָדְרִי, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: גִּיטָּהּ מוֹכִיחַ עָלֶיהָ. וְהָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּדוּתָא הִיא, דְּאִיכָּא דְּשָׁמַע בְּהָא וְלָא שָׁמַע בְּהָא.
Ameimar said: The betrothal money is not returned. This is a rabbinic decree, lest people say that betrothal takes effect with her sister. If the betrothal money is returned, people are likely to think that the betrothal is retroactively nullified and that the man can betroth her sister, whereas in fact the betrothal was not retroactively nullified and he cannot betroth her. Rav Ashi said: Her bill of divorce proves for her that she was betrothed, so this concern is not in effect. The Gemara comments: And this statement of Rav Ashi is a mistake, since there are those who heard about this, i.e., the return of the betrothal money, but did not hear about that, i.e., the bill of divorce.
שֶׁהַשּׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת נִגְבֵּית בְּבֵית דִּין. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּשׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת: נִגְבֵּית בְּבֵית דִּין, וְחוֹזֶרֶת בְּעוֹנָתָהּ, וְאֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית,
§ The mishna teaches: If the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father’s death, they are reciprocated to the middle, because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:8): Five statements were said with regard to gifts of groomsmen: They are collectible in court; and they are reciprocated only at their relevant time, i.e., at the time of the groomsman’s own wedding; and they are not subject to the prohibition of interest, i.e., it is permitted to reciprocate with a gift of greater value than the original gift;
וְאֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּהּ, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּהּ פִּי שְׁנַיִם.
and the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate them; and the firstborn does not take a double portion of them.
נִגְבֵּית בְּבֵית דִּין – מַאי טַעְמָא? כְּמִלְוֶה דָּמְיָא. וְאֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם רִבִּית – דְּלָאו אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי יְהַב לֵיהּ. וְאֵין הַשְּׁבִיעִית מְשַׁמַּטְתָּהּ – דְּלָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ: ״לֹא יִגֹּשׂ״.
The baraita states that gifts of groomsmen are collectible in court. What is the reason for this? It is that they are considered similar to a loan. The baraita states: And they are not subject to the prohibition of interest. The reason is that it was not with that in mind that he gave him a larger gift. Rather, he did so on account of his joy at his friend’s wedding. The baraita states: And the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate them. The reason is that one cannot read the verse concerning the abrogation of debts during the occurrence of the Sabbatical Year: “He shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord’s release has been proclaimed” (Deuteronomy 15:2), with regard to gifts of groomsmen. Since one cannot choose to exact the gifts until the time of one’s own wedding, they are not addressed by this verse.
וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם – דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ רָאוּי, וְאֵין הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק.
The baraita states: And the firstborn does not take a double portion from them. The reason is that they constitute potential inheritance, and the firstborn does not take in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased possessed.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, כְּלָלָא דְשׁוֹשְׁבִינוּתָא: הֲוָה בְּמָתָא – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵיתֵא. שְׁמַע קָל טַבְלָא – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמֵיתֵא. לָא שְׁמַע קָל טַבְלָא – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאוֹדוֹעֵיהּ; תַּרְעוֹמֶת אִית לֵיהּ, שַׁלּוֹמֵי מְשַׁלֵּם.
§ Rav Kahana said: The principle with regard to the reciprocation of gifts of groomsmen is: If the recipient was in town when his groomsman wed, he should have come to the wedding, and even if he did not come, he is obligated to send the gifts of groomsmen. If he was not in town, but he was nearby and he heard the sound of the drum announcing the wedding, he should have come. If he was far away and did not hear the sound of the drum, the betrothed man should have informed him. If he did not inform him, the recipient has a grievance against the betrothed man because he did not inform him about the wedding, but he still repays the gifts of groomsmen.
וְעַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָהֲגוּ בְּנֵי גְנָנָא, עַד זוּזָא – אַיְּיתֵא בְּכַפֵּיהּ אַכְלֵיהּ בִּכְרֵסֵיהּ. עַד אַרְבְּעָה – מְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – אִינִישׁ אִינִישׁ כַּחֲשִׁיבוּתֵיהּ.
In this case, since he did not partake of the wedding feast, he is entitled to deduct a sum from the reciprocal gift. The Gemara asks: And up to how much can he deduct? Abaye said: The members of a wedding feast were accustomed to deduct according to the following principle: If the gift of groomsmen that the reciprocal giver received was up to a dinar, he now pays nothing, because what a person brings in his hand he consumes in his stomach. If the gift of groomsmen was up to four dinars, he now pays half. From that sum onward, each person deducts according to his prominence, i.e., in accordance with the outlay that would have been required to honor the reciprocal giver properly, had he participated in the wedding feast.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עָשָׂה עִמּוֹ בְּפוּמְבֵּי, וּבִקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּצִנְעָא – יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: בְּפוּמְבֵּי אֶעֱשֶׂה עִמְּךָ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשִׂיתָ עִמִּי. עָשָׂה עִמּוֹ בִּבְתוּלָה, וּבִקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בְּאַלְמָנָה – יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: בִּבְתוּלָה אֶעֱשֶׂה עִמְּךָ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשִׂיתָ עִמִּי.
The Sages taught (Tosefta 10:9): If one served as groomsman for his friend at a public [pumbei] wedding, and when the groomsman himself wed, he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him at a private wedding, the friend can say to him: I am willing to reciprocate and serve as groomsman for you only at a public wedding, where the rejoicing is greater, in the manner you served as a groomsman for me. If one served as a groomsman for his friend when he married a virgin, and he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him when he marries a widow, the friend can say to him: I shall serve as a groomsman for you only when you marry a virgin, in the manner you served as a groomsman for me.
עָשָׂה עִמּוֹ בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבִקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה – יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: לִכְשֶׁתִּשָּׂא אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת, אֶעֱשֶׂה עִמְּךָ. עָשָׂה עִמּוֹ בְּאַחַת, וּבִקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמּוֹ בִּשְׁתַּיִם – יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ: בְּאַחַת אֶעֱשֶׂה עִמְּךָ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעָשִׂיתָ עִמִּי.
If one served as a groomsman for his friend when he married a second wife, and he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him when he marries a first wife, the friend can say to him: When you marry another woman I will serve as a groomsman for you. If one served as a groomsman for his friend when he married one woman, and he requested that his friend reciprocate by serving as a groomsman for him when he marries two women, the friend can say to him: I will serve as a groomsman for you when you marry one woman, in the manner you served as a groomsman for me.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עַתִּיר נִכְסִין עַתִּיר פּוּמְבֵּי – זֶה הוּא בַּעַל הַגָּדוֹת. עַתִּיר סְלָעִים עַתִּיר תְּקוֹעַ – זֶהוּ בַּעַל פִּלְפּוּל. עַתִּיר מְשַׁח עַתִּיר כְּמָס – זֶהוּ בַּעַל שְׁמוּעוֹת. הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין לְמָרֵי חִטַּיָּא – תַּלְמוּד.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: There are different types of Torah scholars. There is a scholar who is wealthy in figurative property and wealthy in public renown; this is the master of homiletics. There is a scholar who is wealthy in coins and wealthy in houses; this is the master of dialectics. There is one who is wealthy in oil and wealthy in hidden stores; this is the master of halakhic traditions. Everyone is dependent on the owner of wheat; this is the master of Talmud, who understands the reasons behind the rulings and traditions.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״? זֶה בַּעַל תַּלְמוּד. ״וְטוֹב לֵב מִשְׁתֶּה תָמִיד״ – זֶה בַּעַל מִשְׁנָה.
Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “All the days of the poor are terrible; and for the good-hearted it is always a feast” (Proverbs 15:15)? “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to the master of Talmud, who is wearied by the difficulty of his Talmud study. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to the master of Mishna, who recites the mishnayot by rote and is not wearied thereby.
רָבָא אָמַר: אִיפְּכָא. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״מַסִּיעַ אֲבָנִים יֵעָצֵב בָּהֶם, בּוֹקֵעַ עֵצִים יִסָּכֶן בָּם״? ״מַסִּיעַ אֲבָנִים יֵעָצֵב בָּהֶן״ – אֵלּוּ בַּעְלֵי מִשְׁנָה. ״בּוֹקֵעַ עֵצִים יִסָּכֶן בָּם״ – אֵלּוּ בַּעְלֵי תַלְמוּד.
Rava says: The opposite is true. And this is consistent with that which Rav Mesharshiyya says in the name of Rava: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them; and he that chops wood shall be warmed thereby” (Ecclesiastes 10:9). “He who quarries stones shall be hurt by them”; these are the masters of Mishna. They exert themselves to memorize the mishnayot, but since one cannot reach practical conclusions from the mishna, they are comparable to one who carries a heavy load without benefiting from it. “He that chops wood shall be warmed thereby”; these are the masters of Talmud, who attain the benefit of their exertions in the form of practical conclusions.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: ״כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״ – זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה רָעָה. ״וְטוֹב לֵב מִשְׁתֶּה תָמִיד״ – זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה טוֹבָה. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: ״כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״ – זֶה אִיסְטְנִיס. ״וְטוֹב לֵב מִשְׁתֶּה תָמִיד״ – זֶה שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ יָפָה.
The Gemara cites other interpretations of this verse. Rabbi Ḥanina says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to one who has a wicked wife. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to one who has a good wife. Rabbi Yannai says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to one who is delicate [istenis] and overly sensitive, because he constantly encounters unpleasant situations. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to one who is relaxed and not particular with regard to his food or his surroundings.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״ – זֶה רַחְמָן. ״וְטוֹב לֵב מִשְׁתֶּה תָמִיד״ – זֶה אַכְזָרִי. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: ״כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״ – זֶה שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ קְצָרָה. ״וְטוֹב לֵב מִשְׁתֶּה תָמִיד״ – זֶה שֶׁדַּעְתּוֹ רְחָבָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to an empathetic person, because he is constantly affected by the suffering in the world. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to a cruel person, who is not pained by the suffering of others. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: “All the days of the poor are terrible”; this is referring to a person of impatient disposition. “And for the good-hearted it is always a feast”; this is referring to a person of patient disposition.
