Today's Daf Yomi
June 20, 2017 | 讻状讜 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝
Bava Batra 149
Study Guide Bava Batra 149. What language must be used in order for a gift stated on one’s deathbed will be a valid gift? 聽If one sells all of one’s property on one’s deathbed, is it a valid sale if they recover from their illness? 聽If one admits on one’s deathbed that one owes money, do we believe the admission or is it possible they are just trying to show people that the inheritors don’t have a lot of money? 聽A story os brought of Issur the convert and how he was able to use this as a solution to passing on his possessions to his son (who was conceived before his conversion and therefore did not fall into the category of an heir). 聽The mishna says if one divided up one’s possessions on one’s deathbed but left over land of any amount, and then recovers, the gift is valid. 聽Rav Yehuda says that “any amount” actually means an amount worthy of sustaining him/her. 聽Rav Yirmiya says that even if one left over聽movable items worthy of sustaining. 聽Rav Zeira supports their opinions and Rav Yosef questions them based on the wording in the mishna聽(“land” and “any amount”). 聽Abaye supports Rabii Zeira from a mishna in Peah where land actually includes movable items.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
讬讛谞讛 讘讛谉 诪讛讬 讚谞讬讛讜讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪转谞讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬讚讬 拽讗诪专 讬专讗讛 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 讬注诪讜讚 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 讬砖注谉 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜
If a person on his deathbed says: So-and-so shall benefit from my property, what is the halakha? Is he saying that all of the property shall be a gift? Or perhaps he is saying that the recipient shall derive some benefit from the property. If he says: So-and-so shall be seen in my property, what is the halakha? If he says: So-and-so shall stand in my property, what is the halakha? If he says: So-and-so shall rely on my property, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: All these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讻专 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 注诪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讝讜讝讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讚驻专注讬谞讛讜 讘讞讜讘讜
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a person on his deathbed sold all of his property, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If he recovers, he cannot retract the sale. And at times, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If he recovers, he can retract the sale. And these statements do not disagree. This statement, that he can retract the sale, applies in a case where the dinars he received as payment are still extant, i.e., in his possession. That statement, that he cannot retract the sale, applies in a case where he paid his debt with those dinars.
讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讬住讜专 讙讬讜专讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 专讘讗 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讛讜专转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讘讬 专讘 讛讜讛
搂 A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a person on his deathbed who admitted that he owed money to a certain person, where it was possible that he did not actually owe him money, what is the halakha? Does his admission qualify as the gift of a person on his deathbed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof, as Issur the convert had twelve thousand dinars deposited in the house of Rava. Rav Mari, Issur鈥檚 son, whose conception was not in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was conceived before his father converted, but his birth was in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was born after his father converted, was in a study hall elsewhere when his father was on his deathbed.
讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 专讘 诪专讬 诇讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讬 讘讬专讜砖讛 诇讗讜 讘专 讬专讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘诪转谞讛 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讬专讜砖讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讬专讜砖讛 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘讬专讜砖讛 诇讬转讬讛 讘诪转谞讛
Rava reasoned that he would acquire possession of the deposit for himself, as he said: How can Rav Mari acquire these dinars? If he attempts to acquire the money as inheritance, he is not fit to inherit from Issur. Since he was conceived before his father converted, he is therefore not halakhically considered his son. If he attempts to acquire it as a gift, the Sages equated the halakhic status of the gift of a person on his deathbed with that of inheritance. Therefore, anywhere that the property can be acquired as inheritance, it can also be acquired as a gift, and anywhere that the property cannot be acquired as inheritance, it cannot be acquired as a gift.
讗讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讗讬 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讬 讗讙讘 拽专拽注 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇谞讗
If he attempts to acquire the dinars by pulling them, which is a formal act of acquisition, he will not be able to do this, as the dinars are not with him. If he attempts to acquire them by means of symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article, money cannot be acquired by means of symbolic exchange. If he attempts to acquire them by means of the acquisition of land, Issur does not have any land. If he attempts to acquire them by means of verbal instruction made by his father in the presence of all three parties, i.e., the giver, the recipient, and the bailee, if he sends for me, the bailee, I shall not go, as without the presence of the bailee he cannot transfer ownership of the money.
诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讜诇讜讚讬 讗讬住讜专 讚讛诇讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讚专讘 诪专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘讗讜讚讬转讗 讗讚讛讻讬 谞驻拽 讗讜讚讬转讗 诪讘讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讗 诪讙诪专讬 讟注谞转讗 诇讗讬谞砖讬 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬
Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, objected to this: Why is Rav Mari unable to acquire the money? But why not let Issur admit that these dinars are owned by Rav Mari, and he shall transfer ownership of them to Rav Mari by means of a document of admission? In the meantime, a document of admission stating that the dinars belonged to Rav Mari emerged from Issur鈥檚 house. Rava became angry, and said: They are teaching people legal claims and causing me loss. In any event, this incident proves that the admission of a person on his deathbed is a valid means of transferring ownership.
砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 拽专拽注 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜
搂 The mishna teaches (146b): If a person on his deathbed reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. The Gemara asks: And how much is meant by the term: Any amount? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This means land that is sufficient to provide for his livelihood. Since he reserved this land for himself, one can assume that he wished to transfer the rest of his property in any event. And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: Even if he reserved for himself movable property that is sufficient to provide for his livelihood, his gift is valid.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诪讛 诪讻讜讜谞谉 砖诪注转转讗 讚住讘讬 拽专拽注 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讗讬 拽讗讬 住诪讬讱 注诇讬讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽讗讬 住诪讬讱 注讬诇讜讬讛讜
Rabbi Zeira said: How meticulous are the halakhic statements of the elders Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya. With regard to land, what is the reason that he must have reserved enough for his livelihood? The reason is that if he recovers he will rely on that land for his livelihood. With regard to movable property as well, if he recovers he will rely on it for his livelihood.
诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讗讬 讻讜讜谞转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽专拽注 转谞谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 转谞谉
Rav Yosef objects to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement: What is meticulous about these statements? The statement of the one who says the gift is valid even if he reserved for himself movable property is difficult, as we learn in the mishna that he must leave himself land. The statement of the one who says that he must leave himself an amount sufficient to provide for his livelihood is difficult, as we learn in the mishna that his gift is valid if he reserved for himself any amount.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 拽专拽注 拽专拽注 讚讜拽讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讬 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪专讘讜讗 砖讘讛谉
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And anywhere that the term land is taught, does it mean specifically land? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says: He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it, as in that case it is possible that the master meant to include the slave in the portion that he is not giving away. Consequently, the slave is not emancipated.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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 149
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讬讛谞讛 讘讛谉 诪讛讬 讚谞讬讛讜讬 讻讜诇讛讜 诪转谞讛 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讬转讛谞讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬讚讬 拽讗诪专 讬专讗讛 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 讬注诪讜讚 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 讬砖注谉 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 转讬拽讜
If a person on his deathbed says: So-and-so shall benefit from my property, what is the halakha? Is he saying that all of the property shall be a gift? Or perhaps he is saying that the recipient shall derive some benefit from the property. If he says: So-and-so shall be seen in my property, what is the halakha? If he says: So-and-so shall stand in my property, what is the halakha? If he says: So-and-so shall rely on my property, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: All these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讻专 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 注诪讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗诐 注诪讚 讞讜讝专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讝讜讝讬 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讗 讚驻专注讬谞讛讜 讘讞讜讘讜
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a person on his deathbed sold all of his property, what is the halakha? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: If he recovers, he cannot retract the sale. And at times, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If he recovers, he can retract the sale. And these statements do not disagree. This statement, that he can retract the sale, applies in a case where the dinars he received as payment are still extant, i.e., in his possession. That statement, that he cannot retract the sale, applies in a case where he paid his debt with those dinars.
讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讬住讜专 讙讬讜专讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 专讘讗 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讛讜专转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讘讬 专讘 讛讜讛
搂 A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a person on his deathbed who admitted that he owed money to a certain person, where it was possible that he did not actually owe him money, what is the halakha? Does his admission qualify as the gift of a person on his deathbed? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof, as Issur the convert had twelve thousand dinars deposited in the house of Rava. Rav Mari, Issur鈥檚 son, whose conception was not in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was conceived before his father converted, but his birth was in the sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., he was born after his father converted, was in a study hall elsewhere when his father was on his deathbed.
讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 专讘 诪专讬 诇讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讬 讘讬专讜砖讛 诇讗讜 讘专 讬专讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讬 讘诪转谞讛 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讬专讜砖讛 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘讬专讜砖讛 讗讬转讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘讬专讜砖讛 诇讬转讬讛 讘诪转谞讛
Rava reasoned that he would acquire possession of the deposit for himself, as he said: How can Rav Mari acquire these dinars? If he attempts to acquire the money as inheritance, he is not fit to inherit from Issur. Since he was conceived before his father converted, he is therefore not halakhically considered his son. If he attempts to acquire it as a gift, the Sages equated the halakhic status of the gift of a person on his deathbed with that of inheritance. Therefore, anywhere that the property can be acquired as inheritance, it can also be acquired as a gift, and anywhere that the property cannot be acquired as inheritance, it cannot be acquired as a gift.
讗讬 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诇讬转谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讗讬 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讟讘注 谞拽谞讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讗讬 讗讙讘 拽专拽注 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讗讬 讘诪注诪讚 砖诇砖转谉 讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬 诇讗 讗讝讬诇谞讗
If he attempts to acquire the dinars by pulling them, which is a formal act of acquisition, he will not be able to do this, as the dinars are not with him. If he attempts to acquire them by means of symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article, money cannot be acquired by means of symbolic exchange. If he attempts to acquire them by means of the acquisition of land, Issur does not have any land. If he attempts to acquire them by means of verbal instruction made by his father in the presence of all three parties, i.e., the giver, the recipient, and the bailee, if he sends for me, the bailee, I shall not go, as without the presence of the bailee he cannot transfer ownership of the money.
诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讬拽讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪讗讬 讜诇讜讚讬 讗讬住讜专 讚讛诇讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讚专讘 诪专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 讘讗讜讚讬转讗 讗讚讛讻讬 谞驻拽 讗讜讚讬转讗 诪讘讬 讗讬住讜专 讗讬拽驻讚 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讗 诪讙诪专讬 讟注谞转讗 诇讗讬谞砖讬 讜诪驻住讚讬 诇讬
Rav Ika, son of Rav Ami, objected to this: Why is Rav Mari unable to acquire the money? But why not let Issur admit that these dinars are owned by Rav Mari, and he shall transfer ownership of them to Rav Mari by means of a document of admission? In the meantime, a document of admission stating that the dinars belonged to Rav Mari emerged from Issur鈥檚 house. Rava became angry, and said: They are teaching people legal claims and causing me loss. In any event, this incident proves that the admission of a person on his deathbed is a valid means of transferring ownership.
砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 拽专拽注 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜 讜专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜
搂 The mishna teaches (146b): If a person on his deathbed reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. The Gemara asks: And how much is meant by the term: Any amount? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This means land that is sufficient to provide for his livelihood. Since he reserved this land for himself, one can assume that he wished to transfer the rest of his property in any event. And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: Even if he reserved for himself movable property that is sufficient to provide for his livelihood, his gift is valid.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诪讛 诪讻讜讜谞谉 砖诪注转转讗 讚住讘讬 拽专拽注 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讗讬 拽讗讬 住诪讬讱 注诇讬讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬 谞诪讬 讗讬 拽讗讬 住诪讬讱 注讬诇讜讬讛讜
Rabbi Zeira said: How meticulous are the halakhic statements of the elders Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmeya. With regard to land, what is the reason that he must have reserved enough for his livelihood? The reason is that if he recovers he will rely on that land for his livelihood. With regard to movable property as well, if he recovers he will rely on it for his livelihood.
诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讗讬 讻讜讜谞转讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽专拽注 转谞谉 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讚讬 驻专谞住转讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 转谞谉
Rav Yosef objects to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement: What is meticulous about these statements? The statement of the one who says the gift is valid even if he reserved for himself movable property is difficult, as we learn in the mishna that he must leave himself land. The statement of the one who says that he must leave himself an amount sufficient to provide for his livelihood is difficult, as we learn in the mishna that his gift is valid if he reserved for himself any amount.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 拽专拽注 拽专拽注 讚讜拽讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讬 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪专讘讜讗 砖讘讛谉
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And anywhere that the term land is taught, does it mean specifically land? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says: He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it, as in that case it is possible that the master meant to include the slave in the portion that he is not giving away. Consequently, the slave is not emancipated.
