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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 18, 2017 | 讻状讚 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 147

Study Guide Bava Batra 147. What kind of assumptions can we make about a declaration on one’s deathbed? 聽If he/she gives away all of his/her property and then gets better, we can assume that he/she didn’t mean to give away all their possessions. 聽But if they left over something for themselves, we can then assume the gifts are valid. 聽This is based on “umdana” – assessing what they thought even though they didn’t say so explicitly. 聽The gemara聽tries to match the opinion in our mishna to tannaim who said the same thing regarding other cases in other places in order to determine who the author of the mishna聽is. 聽Various sources are brought to derive where we learn that a gift of a one on our deathbed is valid. 聽Rav Nachman聽says it has validity on a rabbinic level in order not to upset the person on their deathbed. 聽The gemara聽questions that from another case where it seems Rav Nachman聽holds that is valid on a Torah level.


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

讚讜诪讛 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘谉 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讬 讘谉 谞讻住讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讛讬讛 讞讜诇讛 讜诪讜讟诇 讘诪讟讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讻住讬讜 诇诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讚讜诪讛 砖讗砖转讬 诪注讜讘专转 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 讗砖转讬 诪注讜讘专转 谞讻住讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞讜讚注 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛

Previously, I thought that I had a son. Now that I have been informed that I do not have a son, my property shall be given to so-and-so. Or if he was ill and bedridden, and those present said to him: To whom shall his property be given? And he said to them: Previously, I thought that my wife was pregnant. Now that I have been informed that my wife is not pregnant, my property shall be given to so-and-so. And if it then became known, in either of those cases, that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, his gift is not a valid gift, since he clearly indicated that he bestowed the gift on that recipient only because he thought he had no heir.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讜诪讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and not the opinion of the Rabbis? The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as the case where he said: I thought that I had a son, is different, since he stated the reason for his actions.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 爪注专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讚讻专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since the difference between the cases is obvious, the Gemara asks: He who asked it, why did he ask it? The Gemara replies: Lest you say that when the bedridden man mentioned that he does not have a son, he is mentioning it only as an expression of his sorrow, since the matter of the disposal of his estate brings it to mind, but he is not mentioning this as the reason for the gift, the baraita therefore teaches us that the reference to his son indicates that had he known that he had a son, he would not have given his property to others.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讘转讜 讬砖 诇讱 讛注讘专讛 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 讻讝讜 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注

搂 Unlike the gifts of a healthy person, the gifts of a person on his deathbed do not require a formal act of acquisition. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: From where is it derived that this halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is by Torah law? As it is stated in the passage delineating the laws of inheritance: 鈥淚f a man dies, and he does not have a son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). The term 鈥測ou shall cause鈥o pass鈥 is superfluous, as the verse could have stated: His inheritance shall go to his daughter. One can therefore derive from this term that you have another case of causing property to pass to another, which is comparable to this case of inheritance, which does not require an act of acquisition. And what is this case? This is the case of the gift of a person on his deathbed.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讛讻讗 讜谞转转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讬砖 诇讱 谞转讬谞讛 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 讻讝讜 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: 鈥淎nd if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers鈥 (Numbers 27:9). The verse could have stated: His inheritance shall go to his brothers, as inheritance is transferred by itself, without any intervention. One can therefore derive from the term 鈥測ou shall give鈥 that you have another case of giving that is comparable to this case. And what is this case? This is the case of the gift of a person on his deathbed.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讜讛注讘专转诐 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 谞讗诪专讛 讘讛谉 谞转讬谞讛 讜讻讗谉 谞讗诪专讛 讛注讘专讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 砖诪注讘讬专 谞讞诇讛 诪砖讘讟 诇砖讘讟 讗诇讗 讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讛 讜讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗讜转讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rav Na岣an, what is the reason that he did not say that this halakha can be derived from the term 鈥測ou shall cause鈥o pass鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for that which is taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to all of the heirs, the term giving was stated in the Torah, and here, with regard to the daughter, the term causing to pass was stated. One can derive from this that there is no heir who can cause one鈥檚 inheritance to pass from one tribe to another tribe except for the daughter, since her son and her husband inherit from her, and they may be of a different tribe.

讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讜谞转转诐 讗讜专讞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason that he did not say that this halakha can be derived from the term 鈥淭hen you shall give鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira maintains that this usage is the usual manner of the verse, and one cannot derive anything from this term.

专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐 讞诇讛 讞讝拽讬讛讜 诇诪讜转 讜讬讘讗 讗诇讬讜 讬砖注讬讛讜 讘谉 讗诪讜抓 讛谞讘讬讗 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬讜 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 爪讜 诇讘讬转讱 讻讬 诪转 讗转讛 讜诇讗 转讞讬讛 讘爪讜讗讛 讘注诇诪讗

Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: 鈥淚n those days Hezekiah became deathly ill, and Isaiah ben Amoz the prophet came to him, and said to him: So says the Lord: Instruct your household, for you will die, and you will not live鈥 (II聽Kings 20:1). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property.

专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讞讬转讜驻诇 专讗讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞注砖转讛 注爪转讜 讜讬讞讘砖 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜讬诇讱 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讗诇 注讬专讜 讜讬爪讜 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讜讬讞谞拽 讘爪讜讗讛 讘注诇诪讗

Rami bar Ye岣zkel says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: 鈥淎nd when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and he arose, and went to his home, to his city; and he instructed his household, and strangled himself鈥 (II聽Samuel 17:23). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪讜讛 讗讞讬转讜驻诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讗诇 转讛讬讜 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗诇 转诪专讚讜 讘诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 注爪专转 讘专讜专 讝专注讜 讞讟讬诐 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 讘诇讜诇 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇讗 讘专讜专 讘专讜专 诪诪砖 讜诇讗 讘诇讜诇 讘诇讜诇 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讜诇 讜专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪谞砖讘转讜 讝讛 讛讜讗 讘专讜专

The Sages taught: Before his death, when he saw that Absalom鈥檚 rebellion against King David had failed, Ahithophel instructed his sons with regard to three matters: Do not be participants in a dispute. And do not rebel against the kingship of the house of David. And if the festival of Shavuot is a clear day, sow wheat, as it is a sign that the wheat crop will thrive. Mar Zutra said: It was stated that the wheat crop will thrive if Shavuot is a cloudy day, not if it is a clear day. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov: According to both opinions, a clear day does not literally mean a clear day, nor does a cloudy day literally mean a cloudy day. Rather, even if the day is cloudy but a north wind is blowing the clouds away, this is considered a clear day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞谉 讗讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讛讻诇 爪讜驻讬谉 诇注砖谉 讛诪注专讻讛 谞讟讛 讻诇驻讬 爪驻讜谉 注谞讬讬诐 砖诪讞讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 注爪讘讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讙砖诪讬 砖谞讛 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转 诪专拽讬讘讬谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: We teach this matter of signs concerning crops with regard to the statement of Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, as Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi says: At the conclusion of the final day of the festival of Sukkot, everyone looked upon the smoke rising from the arrangement of wood on the altar. If the smoke inclined toward the north due to a south wind, the poor were glad and the homeowners were sad, because this was a sign that the year鈥檚 rainfall would be plentiful, and although the rain would produce an abundant crop, the produce would decay due to the humidity. The humidity would make it difficult to store the abundant harvest, forcing the homeowners to sell the produce quickly at a lower price.

谞讟讛 讻诇驻讬 讚专讜诐 注谞讬讬诐 注爪讘讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖诪讞讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讙砖诪讬 砖谞讛 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转 诪砖转诪专讬谉 谞讟讛 讻诇驻讬 诪讝专讞 讛讻诇 砖诪讞讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诪注专讘 讛讻诇 注爪讘讬谉

If the smoke inclined toward the south due to a north wind, the poor were sad and the homeowners were glad, because this indicated that the year鈥檚 rainfall would be sparse and the produce would be meager and would store well. If the smoke inclined toward the east due to a west wind, everyone was glad, because this indicated that there would be sufficient rainfall to ensure a substantial crop, and at the same time, the produce would store well. If the smoke inclined toward the west due to an east wind, everyone was sad, because the east wind does not bring rain, and this indicated that there would be a drought.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讝专讞讬转 诇注讜诇诐 讬驻讛 诪注专讘讬转 诇注讜诇诐 拽砖讛 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 讬驻讛 诇讞讟讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜拽砖讛 诇讝讬转讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖讬谞讬爪讜 讜专讜讞 讚专讜诪讬转 拽砖讛 诇讞讟讬谉 讘砖注讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜讬驻讛 诇讝讬转讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖讬谞讬爪讜

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: An east wind is always beneficial, and a west wind is always harmful. A north wind is beneficial to the wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth and harmful to the olives when they are blossoming. And a south wind is harmful to the wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth and beneficial to the olives when they are blossoming.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讱 砖诇讞谉 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪谞讜专讛 讘讚专讜诐 讛讗讬 诪专讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诪专讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

And Rav Yosef says, and some say it is Mar Zutra who says this, and some say it is Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who says this: The following is your mnemonic to remember which wind is beneficial to which crop: The Table is in the north of the Sanctuary, and the Candelabrum is in the south. This one increases its own, and that one increases its own, i.e., the Table, upon which the shewbread made from wheat is placed, is in the north, and the north wind is beneficial to the wheat. The Candelabrum, which is lit with olive oil, is in the south, and the south wind is beneficial to the olives. In any event, the baraita contradicts the statement of Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi with regard to the effect of the western and eastern winds.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the east wind, is for us, in Babylonia, and that, the west wind, is for them, in Eretz Yisrael. In Babylonia the east wind is beneficial, because water is plentiful there, and the dry east wind does not harm the crops. In Eretz Yisrael the east wind is harmful, because water is scarce, and the east wind ruins the crops, whereas the west wind brings the necessary rain.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 注爪专转 讘专讜专 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 诇讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗讬 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 讚专讬砖 砖转讗 讗讬 讞诪讬诐 讻讜诇讛 砖转讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讗讬 拽专讬专 讻讜诇讛 砖转讗 拽专讬专讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛

It is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says: If the festival of Shavuot is a clear day, this is a good sign for the entire year. Rav Zevid said: With regard to this first day of Rosh HaShana, if it is warm, the entire year will be warm, but if it is cold, the entire year will be cold. The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether one knows this or not?

诇转驻诇转讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to the prayer of the High Priest, who would pray on Yom Kippur for beneficial weather, and this knowledge enabled him to formulate his prayers accordingly.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 砖诪讗 转讟专祝 讚注转讜 注诇讬讜

The Gemara resumes the discussion with regard to the gifts of a person on his deathbed: And Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha that the gift of a person on his deathbed does not require an act of acquisition is merely by rabbinic law, and it is instituted lest he see that his will is not being carried out and he lose control of his mind due to his grief, exacerbating his physical state.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诐 谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讜讞诇讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rav Na岣an actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: Even though Shmuel says that with regard to one who sells a promissory note to another and then forgives the debt, the debt is forgiven and the note is nullified, and even the heir of the creditor can forgive the debt, Shmuel concedes that if the creditor gave the promissory note as the gift of a person on his deathbed, his heir cannot forgive the debt?

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讞讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讞讜诇 讗讬谞讛 砖诇 转讜专讛 讜注砖讗讜讛 讻砖诇 转讜专讛

Granted, if you say that the gift of a person on his deathbed is valid by Torah law without an act of acquisition, due to that reason the heir cannot forgive the debt, as the debt was acquired by another. But if you say that it is valid by rabbinic law, why is the heir unable to forgive the debt? The Gemara replies: Rav Na岣an maintains that although this gift is not effective by Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages made it a halakha with the force of Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 讬讚讜专 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讘讬转 讝讛 讬讗讻诇 驻诇讜谞讬 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 转谞讜 讘讬转 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讚讜专 讘讜 转谞讜 讚拽诇 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讗讻诇 驻讬专讜转讬讜

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who says: So-and-so shall reside in this house, or who says: So-and-so shall eat the fruit of this palm tree, he has not said anything, as one cannot give that which is not tangible, such as the right to use property, or the right to consume fruit that has not yet grown. His statement is ineffective until he says: Give this house to so-and-so and he shall reside there, or: Give this palm tree to so-and-so and he shall eat its fruit.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘讘专讬讗 讗讬转讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚诇讬转讗 讘讘专讬讗 诇讬转讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav Na岣an maintains that only a matter that can be conferred as a gift by a healthy person with an act of acquisition can be conferred as a gift by a person on his deathbed by means of verbal instruction, but a matter that cannot be conferred as a gift by a healthy person cannot be conferred as a gift by a person on his deathbed? Consequently, a person on his deathbed cannot transfer ownership of an intangible right, just as a healthy person cannot do so. But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that Rav Na岣an says:

  • 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 Shlemah 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 147

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 147

讚讜诪讛 砖讬砖 诇讬 讘谉 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讬 讘谉 谞讻住讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讛讬讛 讞讜诇讛 讜诪讜讟诇 讘诪讟讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 谞讻住讬讜 诇诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讚讜诪讛 砖讗砖转讬 诪注讜讘专转 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 讗砖转讬 诪注讜讘专转 谞讻住讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜谞讜讚注 砖讬砖 诇讜 讘谉 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 讗砖转讜 诪注讜讘专转 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛

Previously, I thought that I had a son. Now that I have been informed that I do not have a son, my property shall be given to so-and-so. Or if he was ill and bedridden, and those present said to him: To whom shall his property be given? And he said to them: Previously, I thought that my wife was pregnant. Now that I have been informed that my wife is not pregnant, my property shall be given to so-and-so. And if it then became known, in either of those cases, that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, his gift is not a valid gift, since he clearly indicated that he bestowed the gift on that recipient only because he thought he had no heir.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讚讜诪讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and not the opinion of the Rabbis? The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as the case where he said: I thought that I had a son, is different, since he stated the reason for his actions.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 爪注专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 诪讚讻专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since the difference between the cases is obvious, the Gemara asks: He who asked it, why did he ask it? The Gemara replies: Lest you say that when the bedridden man mentioned that he does not have a son, he is mentioning it only as an expression of his sorrow, since the matter of the disposal of his estate brings it to mind, but he is not mentioning this as the reason for the gift, the baraita therefore teaches us that the reference to his son indicates that had he known that he had a son, he would not have given his property to others.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛注讘专转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讘转讜 讬砖 诇讱 讛注讘专讛 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 讻讝讜 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注

搂 Unlike the gifts of a healthy person, the gifts of a person on his deathbed do not require a formal act of acquisition. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: From where is it derived that this halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is by Torah law? As it is stated in the passage delineating the laws of inheritance: 鈥淚f a man dies, and he does not have a son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter鈥 (Numbers 27:8). The term 鈥測ou shall cause鈥o pass鈥 is superfluous, as the verse could have stated: His inheritance shall go to his daughter. One can therefore derive from this term that you have another case of causing property to pass to another, which is comparable to this case of inheritance, which does not require an act of acquisition. And what is this case? This is the case of the gift of a person on his deathbed.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪讛讻讗 讜谞转转诐 讗转 谞讞诇转讜 诇讗讞讬讜 讬砖 诇讱 谞转讬谞讛 讗讞专转 砖讛讬讗 讻讝讜 讜讗讬 讝讜 讝讜 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: 鈥淎nd if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers鈥 (Numbers 27:9). The verse could have stated: His inheritance shall go to his brothers, as inheritance is transferred by itself, without any intervention. One can therefore derive from the term 鈥測ou shall give鈥 that you have another case of giving that is comparable to this case. And what is this case? This is the case of the gift of a person on his deathbed.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讜讛注讘专转诐 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 谞讗诪专讛 讘讛谉 谞转讬谞讛 讜讻讗谉 谞讗诪专讛 讛注讘专讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 砖诪注讘讬专 谞讞诇讛 诪砖讘讟 诇砖讘讟 讗诇讗 讘转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讛 讜讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讬谉 讗讜转讛

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rav Na岣an, what is the reason that he did not say that this halakha can be derived from the term 鈥測ou shall cause鈥o pass鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse for that which is taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to all of the heirs, the term giving was stated in the Torah, and here, with regard to the daughter, the term causing to pass was stated. One can derive from this that there is no heir who can cause one鈥檚 inheritance to pass from one tribe to another tribe except for the daughter, since her son and her husband inherit from her, and they may be of a different tribe.

讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诪讜谞转转诐 讗讜专讞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason that he did not say that this halakha can be derived from the term 鈥淭hen you shall give鈥? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira maintains that this usage is the usual manner of the verse, and one cannot derive anything from this term.

专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘讬诪讬诐 讛讛诐 讞诇讛 讞讝拽讬讛讜 诇诪讜转 讜讬讘讗 讗诇讬讜 讬砖注讬讛讜 讘谉 讗诪讜抓 讛谞讘讬讗 讜讬讗诪专 讗诇讬讜 讻讛 讗诪专 讛壮 爪讜 诇讘讬转讱 讻讬 诪转 讗转讛 讜诇讗 转讞讬讛 讘爪讜讗讛 讘注诇诪讗

Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: 鈥淚n those days Hezekiah became deathly ill, and Isaiah ben Amoz the prophet came to him, and said to him: So says the Lord: Instruct your household, for you will die, and you will not live鈥 (II聽Kings 20:1). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property.

专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讞讬转讜驻诇 专讗讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞注砖转讛 注爪转讜 讜讬讞讘砖 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜讬诇讱 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讗诇 注讬专讜 讜讬爪讜 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讜讬讞谞拽 讘爪讜讗讛 讘注诇诪讗

Rami bar Ye岣zkel says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: 鈥淎nd when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and he arose, and went to his home, to his city; and he instructed his household, and strangled himself鈥 (II聽Samuel 17:23). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖讛 讚讘专讬诐 爪讜讛 讗讞讬转讜驻诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讗诇 转讛讬讜 讘诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讗诇 转诪专讚讜 讘诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 注爪专转 讘专讜专 讝专注讜 讞讟讬诐 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 讘诇讜诇 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 诇讗 讘专讜专 讘专讜专 诪诪砖 讜诇讗 讘诇讜诇 讘诇讜诇 诪诪砖 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讜诇 讜专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 诪谞砖讘转讜 讝讛 讛讜讗 讘专讜专

The Sages taught: Before his death, when he saw that Absalom鈥檚 rebellion against King David had failed, Ahithophel instructed his sons with regard to three matters: Do not be participants in a dispute. And do not rebel against the kingship of the house of David. And if the festival of Shavuot is a clear day, sow wheat, as it is a sign that the wheat crop will thrive. Mar Zutra said: It was stated that the wheat crop will thrive if Shavuot is a cloudy day, not if it is a clear day. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov: According to both opinions, a clear day does not literally mean a clear day, nor does a cloudy day literally mean a cloudy day. Rather, even if the day is cloudy but a north wind is blowing the clouds away, this is considered a clear day.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗谞谉 讗讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讛讻诇 爪讜驻讬谉 诇注砖谉 讛诪注专讻讛 谞讟讛 讻诇驻讬 爪驻讜谉 注谞讬讬诐 砖诪讞讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 注爪讘讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讙砖诪讬 砖谞讛 诪专讜讘讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转 诪专拽讬讘讬谉

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: We teach this matter of signs concerning crops with regard to the statement of Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi, as Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi says: At the conclusion of the final day of the festival of Sukkot, everyone looked upon the smoke rising from the arrangement of wood on the altar. If the smoke inclined toward the north due to a south wind, the poor were glad and the homeowners were sad, because this was a sign that the year鈥檚 rainfall would be plentiful, and although the rain would produce an abundant crop, the produce would decay due to the humidity. The humidity would make it difficult to store the abundant harvest, forcing the homeowners to sell the produce quickly at a lower price.

谞讟讛 讻诇驻讬 讚专讜诐 注谞讬讬诐 注爪讘讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 砖诪讞讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讙砖诪讬 砖谞讛 诪讜注讟讬谉 讜驻讬专讜转 诪砖转诪专讬谉 谞讟讛 讻诇驻讬 诪讝专讞 讛讻诇 砖诪讞讬谉 讻诇驻讬 诪注专讘 讛讻诇 注爪讘讬谉

If the smoke inclined toward the south due to a north wind, the poor were sad and the homeowners were glad, because this indicated that the year鈥檚 rainfall would be sparse and the produce would be meager and would store well. If the smoke inclined toward the east due to a west wind, everyone was glad, because this indicated that there would be sufficient rainfall to ensure a substantial crop, and at the same time, the produce would store well. If the smoke inclined toward the west due to an east wind, everyone was sad, because the east wind does not bring rain, and this indicated that there would be a drought.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讝专讞讬转 诇注讜诇诐 讬驻讛 诪注专讘讬转 诇注讜诇诐 拽砖讛 专讜讞 爪驻讜谞讬转 讬驻讛 诇讞讟讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜拽砖讛 诇讝讬转讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖讬谞讬爪讜 讜专讜讞 讚专讜诪讬转 拽砖讛 诇讞讟讬谉 讘砖注讛 砖讛讘讬讗讜 砖诇讬砖 讜讬驻讛 诇讝讬转讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖讬谞讬爪讜

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: An east wind is always beneficial, and a west wind is always harmful. A north wind is beneficial to the wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth and harmful to the olives when they are blossoming. And a south wind is harmful to the wheat when it has reached one-third of its growth and beneficial to the olives when they are blossoming.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜住讬诪谞讱 砖诇讞谉 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪谞讜专讛 讘讚专讜诐 讛讗讬 诪专讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讛讗讬 诪专讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

And Rav Yosef says, and some say it is Mar Zutra who says this, and some say it is Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who says this: The following is your mnemonic to remember which wind is beneficial to which crop: The Table is in the north of the Sanctuary, and the Candelabrum is in the south. This one increases its own, and that one increases its own, i.e., the Table, upon which the shewbread made from wheat is placed, is in the north, and the north wind is beneficial to the wheat. The Candelabrum, which is lit with olive oil, is in the south, and the south wind is beneficial to the olives. In any event, the baraita contradicts the statement of Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi with regard to the effect of the western and eastern winds.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the east wind, is for us, in Babylonia, and that, the west wind, is for them, in Eretz Yisrael. In Babylonia the east wind is beneficial, because water is plentiful there, and the dry east wind does not harm the crops. In Eretz Yisrael the east wind is harmful, because water is scarce, and the east wind ruins the crops, whereas the west wind brings the necessary rain.

转谞讬讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖诇 注爪专转 讘专讜专 住讬诪谉 讬驻讛 诇讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗讬 讬讜诪讗 拽诪讗 讚专讬砖 砖转讗 讗讬 讞诪讬诐 讻讜诇讛 砖转讗 讞诪讬诪讗 讗讬 拽专讬专 讻讜诇讛 砖转讗 拽专讬专讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛

It is taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says: If the festival of Shavuot is a clear day, this is a good sign for the entire year. Rav Zevid said: With regard to this first day of Rosh HaShana, if it is warm, the entire year will be warm, but if it is cold, the entire year will be cold. The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether one knows this or not?

诇转驻诇转讜 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to the prayer of the High Priest, who would pray on Yom Kippur for beneficial weather, and this knowledge enabled him to formulate his prayers accordingly.

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 诪讚专讘谞谉 讘注诇诪讗 讛讬讗 砖诪讗 转讟专祝 讚注转讜 注诇讬讜

The Gemara resumes the discussion with regard to the gifts of a person on his deathbed: And Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha that the gift of a person on his deathbed does not require an act of acquisition is merely by rabbinic law, and it is instituted lest he see that his will is not being carried out and he lose control of his mind due to his grief, exacerbating his physical state.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇 诪讜讚讛 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讗诐 谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讜讞诇讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rav Na岣an actually say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: Even though Shmuel says that with regard to one who sells a promissory note to another and then forgives the debt, the debt is forgiven and the note is nullified, and even the heir of the creditor can forgive the debt, Shmuel concedes that if the creditor gave the promissory note as the gift of a person on his deathbed, his heir cannot forgive the debt?

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讞讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇诪讞讜诇 讗讬谞讛 砖诇 转讜专讛 讜注砖讗讜讛 讻砖诇 转讜专讛

Granted, if you say that the gift of a person on his deathbed is valid by Torah law without an act of acquisition, due to that reason the heir cannot forgive the debt, as the debt was acquired by another. But if you say that it is valid by rabbinic law, why is the heir unable to forgive the debt? The Gemara replies: Rav Na岣an maintains that although this gift is not effective by Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages made it a halakha with the force of Torah law.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 讬讚讜专 驻诇讜谞讬 讘讘讬转 讝讛 讬讗讻诇 驻诇讜谞讬 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 转谞讜 讘讬转 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讚讜专 讘讜 转谞讜 讚拽诇 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬讗讻诇 驻讬专讜转讬讜

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who says: So-and-so shall reside in this house, or who says: So-and-so shall eat the fruit of this palm tree, he has not said anything, as one cannot give that which is not tangible, such as the right to use property, or the right to consume fruit that has not yet grown. His statement is ineffective until he says: Give this house to so-and-so and he shall reside there, or: Give this palm tree to so-and-so and he shall eat its fruit.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘讘专讬讗 讗讬转讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚诇讬转讗 讘讘专讬讗 诇讬转讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Rav Na岣an maintains that only a matter that can be conferred as a gift by a healthy person with an act of acquisition can be conferred as a gift by a person on his deathbed by means of verbal instruction, but a matter that cannot be conferred as a gift by a healthy person cannot be conferred as a gift by a person on his deathbed? Consequently, a person on his deathbed cannot transfer ownership of an intangible right, just as a healthy person cannot do so. But doesn鈥檛 Rava say that Rav Na岣an says:

Scroll To Top