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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 16, 2017 | 讻状讘 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 145

The Mishna says that when one sends gifts (unique gifts called shushbinot that are reciprocal and can even be demanded in court) to another for his wedding through one of his sons and then subsequently dies, when the gift is returned at that son’s wedding, it gets divided by all the sons (heirs) evenly. 聽A contradiction is brought from a braita and three explanations are given. 聽If the gift is given to the father of the groom and then upon return to the other family, the father is no longer alive, the sons have to share the expense of returning the gift (it isn’t all the responsibility of the groom who got married previously). 聽Various issues are raised through these discussions including cases where a woman is betrothed and never married – does she have to return the kiddushin money or not? 聽Is there a distinction made between the kiddushin money and other gifts that were given from the groom’s family to the bride? 聽 What are the laws that govern the shushbinot gifts? 聽If one doesn’t attend the wedding, how much can one deduct from his gift? 聽The gemara ends with drashot about the difference between Torah scholars who learn mishna vs. those who learn Talmud. 聽And others about middot – which are those that will make a person happy and which of those will cause them to lead an unhappy life. 聽Some of these sources view having a happy life as a good thing whereas others don’t view it in a positive light.


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

转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诪讞 注诪讜 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬 诪砖转讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇驻讜专注讜 注讚 砖诪转

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? Shmuel鈥檚 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.

诇讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讗专住 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 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 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 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

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Shmuel鈥檚 statement that a betrothed woman can claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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?

讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛诪讗专住 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讗讘诇 诪转讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 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 讜讚讜拽讗 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 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬谉 诪转 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 诪转讛 讛讬讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 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 讜诇讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讻讜诇讛 砖转讗诪专 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讜讚诪讬转 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 住讘专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗讜 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜

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.

讜讛讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜住讘诇讜谞讜转 讜讚讗讬 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 拽讚砖讛 讘讻讻专 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝专转 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讛 讘注砖专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉 拽讚砖讛 讘砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 注砖专讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉

The Gemara notes: The dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, in the following baraita, is like the dispute between those tanna鈥檌m 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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪转讛 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗诇讗 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 诪讞讝专转 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讜谞讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讜讗诇讗 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘专爪讜谉 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗诇讗 讘讗讜谞住 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛

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?

讜讗诇讗 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗讜 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讗讬 诇讗

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鈥檌m 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.

讜讛诇讻讱 拽讚砖讛 讘注砖专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉 拽讚砖讛 讘砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 注砖专讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜转专讙讜诪讗 谞讛专讚注讗 砖讗专 讘讘诇 诪讗讬 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讛专讬 讛讚专讬 拽讚讜砖讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘讬谉 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 讛讜讗 诪讜讛专讬 讛讚专讬 拽讚讜砖讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讛讚专讗 讘讛 讗讬讛讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚讜砖讬 谞诪讬 讛讚专讬

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檃. 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.

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讙讬讟讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚砖诪注 讘讛讗 讜诇讗 砖诪注 讘讛讗

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.

砖讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讞讜讝专转 讘注讜谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转

搂 The mishna teaches: If the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father鈥檚 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鈥檚 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;

讜讗讬谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐

and the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate them; and the firstborn does not take a double portion of them.

谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪诇讜讛 讚诪讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 讚诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬讙砖

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord鈥檚 release has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2), with regard to gifts of groomsmen. Since one cannot choose to exact the gifts until the time of one鈥檚 own wedding, they are not addressed by this verse.

讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讗讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻诇诇讗 讚砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转讗 讛讜讛 讘诪转讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讗 砖诪注 拽诇 讟讘诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪注 拽诇 讟讘诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 转专注讜诪转 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诇讜诪讬 诪砖诇诐

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.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讛讙讜 讘谞讬 讙谞谞讗 注讚 讝讜讝讗 讗讬讬转讗 讘讻驻讬讛 讗讻诇讬讛 讘讻专住讬讛 注讚 讗专讘注讛 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讬砖 讻讞砖讬讘讜转讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注砖讛 注诪讜 讘驻讜诪讘讬 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘爪谞注讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讘驻讜诪讘讬 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻讚专讱 砖注砖讬转 注诪讬 注砖讛 注诪讜 讘讘转讜诇讛 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讘讘转讜诇讛 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻讚专讱 砖注砖讬转 注诪讬

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.

注砖讛 注诪讜 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讻砖转砖讗 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 注砖讛 注诪讜 讘讗讞转 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘砖转讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讘讗讞转 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻讚专讱 砖注砖讬转 注诪讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注转讬专 谞讻住讬谉 注转讬专 驻讜诪讘讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 讘注诇 讛讙讚讜转 注转讬专 住诇注讬诐 注转讬专 转拽讜注 讝讛讜 讘注诇 驻诇驻讜诇 注转讬专 诪砖讞 注转讬专 讻诪住 讝讛讜 讘注诇 砖诪讜注讜转 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇诪专讬 讞讟讬讗 转诇诪讜讚

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 讘注诇 转诇诪讜讚 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 讘注诇 诪砖谞讛

Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible; and for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥 (Proverbs 15:15)? 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to the master of Talmud, who is wearied by the difficulty of his Talmud study. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to the master of Mishna, who recites the mishnayot by rote and is not wearied thereby.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪住讬注 讗讘谞讬诐 讬注爪讘 讘讛诐 讘讜拽注 注爪讬诐 讬住讻谉 讘诐 诪住讬注 讗讘谞讬诐 讬注爪讘 讘讛谉 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪砖谞讛 讘讜拽注 注爪讬诐 讬住讻谉 讘诐 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 转诇诪讜讚

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: 鈥淗e who quarries stones shall be hurt by them; and he that chops wood shall be warmed thereby鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:9). 鈥淗e who quarries stones shall be hurt by them鈥; 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. 鈥淗e that chops wood shall be warmed thereby鈥; these are the masters of Talmud, who attain the benefit of their exertions in the form of practical conclusions.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 专注讛 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讟讜讘讛 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 讗讬住讟谞讬住 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 砖讚注转讜 讬驻讛

The Gemara cites other interpretations of this verse. Rabbi 岣nina says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to one who has a wicked wife. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to one who has a good wife. Rabbi Yannai says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to one who is delicate [istenis] and overly sensitive, because he constantly encounters unpleasant situations. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to one who is relaxed and not particular with regard to his food or his surroundings.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 专讞诪谉 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 讗讻讝专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 砖讚注转讜 拽爪专讛 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 砖讚注转讜 专讞讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to an empathetic person, because he is constantly affected by the suffering in the world. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to a cruel person, who is not pained by the suffering of others. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to a person of impatient disposition. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to a person of patient disposition.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 145

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 145

转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖砖诪讞 注诪讜 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬 诪砖转讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇驻讜专注讜 注讚 砖诪转

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? Shmuel鈥檚 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.

诇讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讗专住 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 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 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 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

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Shmuel鈥檚 statement that a betrothed woman can claim: Give me my husband and I will rejoice with him, is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m? 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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?

讜讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛诪讗专住 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬讛讜 讗讘诇 诪转讛 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 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 讜讚讜拽讗 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 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

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.

讜讗转讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘讗诪转 讗诪专讜 讘讬谉 诪转 讛讜讗 讜讘讬谉 诪转讛 讛讬讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 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 讜诇讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜

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.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讻讜诇讛 砖转讗诪专 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讜讚诪讬转 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讗 讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 谞转谉 住讘专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讗讜 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞砖讬讗 住讘专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜

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.

讜讛讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜住讘诇讜谞讜转 讜讚讗讬 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 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.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 拽讚砖讛 讘讻讻专 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘转讜诇讛 讙讜讘讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜诪讞讝专转 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 拽讚砖讛 讘注砖专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉 拽讚砖讛 讘砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 注砖专讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉

The Gemara notes: The dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, in the following baraita, is like the dispute between those tanna鈥檌m 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.

讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖诪转讛 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗诇讗 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讗诪讗讬 诪讞讝专转 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讗专 讜谞讬诪讗 转谞讜 诇讬 讘注诇讬 讜讗砖诪讞 注诪讜 讜讗诇讗 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讝讬谞转讛 讜讘诪讗讬 讗讬 讘专爪讜谉 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗诇讗 讘讗讜谞住 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛

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?

讜讗诇讗 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖谞讗谞住讛 讜讘拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗讜 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讟讬讘讜注讬谉 谞讬转谞讜 讗讬 诇讗

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鈥檌m 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.

讜讛诇讻讱 拽讚砖讛 讘注砖专讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉 拽讚砖讛 讘砖诇砖讬诐 谞讜转谉 诇讛 注砖专讬诐 讞爪讗讬谉

The Gemara explains Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讜转专讙讜诪讗 谞讛专讚注讗 砖讗专 讘讘诇 诪讗讬 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讛专讬 讛讚专讬 拽讚讜砖讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛诇讻转讗 讘讬谉 砖诪转 讛讜讗 讘讬谉 砖诪转讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 讛讜讗 诪讜讛专讬 讛讚专讬 拽讚讜砖讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讛讚专讗 讘讛 讗讬讛讬 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚讜砖讬 谞诪讬 讛讚专讬

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檃. 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.

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讬 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 转讜驻住讬谉 讘讗讞讜转讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讙讬讟讛 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘讚讜转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚砖诪注 讘讛讗 讜诇讗 砖诪注 讘讛讗

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.

砖讛砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞诪砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转 谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讞讜讝专转 讘注讜谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转

搂 The mishna teaches: If the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father鈥檚 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鈥檚 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;

讜讗讬谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘讛 驻讬 砖谞讬诐

and the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate them; and the firstborn does not take a double portion of them.

谞讙讘讬转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪诇讜讛 讚诪讬讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转 讚诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讘讬注讬转 诪砖诪讟转讛 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬讙砖

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother, because the Lord鈥檚 release has been proclaimed鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2), with regard to gifts of groomsmen. Since one cannot choose to exact the gifts until the time of one鈥檚 own wedding, they are not addressed by this verse.

讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 驻讬 砖谞讬诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讗讜讬 讜讗讬谉 讛讘讻讜专 谞讜讟诇 讘专讗讜讬 讻讘诪讜讞讝拽

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讻诇诇讗 讚砖讜砖讘讬谞讜转讗 讛讜讛 讘诪转讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讗 砖诪注 拽诇 讟讘诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪注 拽诇 讟讘诇讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 转专注讜诪转 讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诇讜诪讬 诪砖诇诐

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.

讜注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讛讙讜 讘谞讬 讙谞谞讗 注讚 讝讜讝讗 讗讬讬转讗 讘讻驻讬讛 讗讻诇讬讛 讘讻专住讬讛 注讚 讗专讘注讛 诪砖诇诐 驻诇讙讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讬砖 讻讞砖讬讘讜转讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注砖讛 注诪讜 讘驻讜诪讘讬 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘爪谞注讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讘驻讜诪讘讬 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻讚专讱 砖注砖讬转 注诪讬 注砖讛 注诪讜 讘讘转讜诇讛 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘讗诇诪谞讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讘讘转讜诇讛 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻讚专讱 砖注砖讬转 注诪讬

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.

注砖讛 注诪讜 讘砖谞讬讛 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 诇讻砖转砖讗 讗砖讛 讗讞专转 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 注砖讛 注诪讜 讘讗讞转 讜讘拽砖 诇注砖讜转 注诪讜 讘砖转讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讘讗讞转 讗注砖讛 注诪讱 讻讚专讱 砖注砖讬转 注诪讬

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注转讬专 谞讻住讬谉 注转讬专 驻讜诪讘讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 讘注诇 讛讙讚讜转 注转讬专 住诇注讬诐 注转讬专 转拽讜注 讝讛讜 讘注诇 驻诇驻讜诇 注转讬专 诪砖讞 注转讬专 讻诪住 讝讛讜 讘注诇 砖诪讜注讜转 讛讻诇 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇诪专讬 讞讟讬讗 转诇诪讜讚

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 讘注诇 转诇诪讜讚 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 讘注诇 诪砖谞讛

Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible; and for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥 (Proverbs 15:15)? 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to the master of Talmud, who is wearied by the difficulty of his Talmud study. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to the master of Mishna, who recites the mishnayot by rote and is not wearied thereby.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬驻讻讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪住讬注 讗讘谞讬诐 讬注爪讘 讘讛诐 讘讜拽注 注爪讬诐 讬住讻谉 讘诐 诪住讬注 讗讘谞讬诐 讬注爪讘 讘讛谉 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 诪砖谞讛 讘讜拽注 注爪讬诐 讬住讻谉 讘诐 讗诇讜 讘注诇讬 转诇诪讜讚

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: 鈥淗e who quarries stones shall be hurt by them; and he that chops wood shall be warmed thereby鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:9). 鈥淗e who quarries stones shall be hurt by them鈥; 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. 鈥淗e that chops wood shall be warmed thereby鈥; these are the masters of Talmud, who attain the benefit of their exertions in the form of practical conclusions.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 专注讛 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讟讜讘讛 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 讗讬住讟谞讬住 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 砖讚注转讜 讬驻讛

The Gemara cites other interpretations of this verse. Rabbi 岣nina says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to one who has a wicked wife. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to one who has a good wife. Rabbi Yannai says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to one who is delicate [istenis] and overly sensitive, because he constantly encounters unpleasant situations. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to one who is relaxed and not particular with regard to his food or his surroundings.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 专讞诪谉 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 讗讻讝专讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讬诪讬 注谞讬 专注讬诐 讝讛 砖讚注转讜 拽爪专讛 讜讟讜讘 诇讘 诪砖转讛 转诪讬讚 讝讛 砖讚注转讜 专讞讘讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to an empathetic person, because he is constantly affected by the suffering in the world. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to a cruel person, who is not pained by the suffering of others. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: 鈥淎ll the days of the poor are terrible鈥; this is referring to a person of impatient disposition. 鈥淎nd for the good-hearted it is always a feast鈥; this is referring to a person of patient disposition.

Scroll To Top