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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 29, 2017 | 讛壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 158

Study Guide Bava Batra 158-159. Shiur in memory of Oz. More cases are brought of people who die at the same time and the heirs debate who died first and who should get the possessions.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗砖转讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讛 诪转讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖讬 讗砖讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘注诇 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讗砖讛

MISHNA: If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband鈥檚 heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband鈥檚 heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife鈥檚 heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘

Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them. And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband鈥檚 heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband鈥檚 property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife鈥檚 possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman鈥檚 father.

讙诪壮 讘讞讝拽转 诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗砖讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Hillel, the guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the guaranteed property remain? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It remains in the possession of the husband鈥檚 heirs, since the husband is liable to compensate his wife for guaranteed property in the event of loss. And Rabbi Elazar says: It remains in the possession of the wife鈥檚 heirs, as the property came from her father鈥檚 house and belongs to her.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讬专砖 讜讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讬专砖 讬讞诇讜拽讜

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of bar Kappara: They divide the property between them. And likewise bar Kappara teaches in a baraita: Since these heirs come to inherit and those heirs come to inherit, and neither can prove his claim, they divide the property between them.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬谉 砖讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讗谞讬 讘讝讜 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 注讝讗讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讗谞讜 诪爪讟注专讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讘讗转 诇讞诇拽 注诇讬谞讜 讗转 讛砖讜讬谉

MISHNA: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother鈥檚 paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son鈥檚 heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?

讙诪壮 讘讞讝拽转 诪讬 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗诐 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽诐 讘砖讬讟转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 拽诐 专讘讛 讘砖讬讟转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜讬专讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞讻讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Akiva, the property retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the property remain? Rabbi Ila says: It remains in the possession of the mother鈥檚 heirs. Rabbi Zeira, when he was still in Babylonia, said: It remains in the possession of the son鈥檚 heirs. When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he adopted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, whereas Rabba, in Babylonia, adopted the opinion stated by Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from this incident that the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise, as when I ascended to Eretz Yisrael I accepted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who was also from Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rabba, who remained in Babylonia, accepted my former opinion.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讞讝拽讛 谞讞诇讛 讘讗讜转讜 砖讘讟

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the property remains in the possession of the mother鈥檚 heirs? Abaye says: Since the inheritance was initially in the possession of that tribe of the mother, it is not removed from their possession in order to transfer it to the son鈥檚 heirs, who are from a different tribe.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 注讝讗讬 注诇 讛讞诇讜拽讬谉 讗谞讜 诪爪讟注专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 注讚讗 讗诪专讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 转诇诪讬讚 讞讘专 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讛 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讗转

The mishna teaches: Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree? Rabbi Shamlai said: That is to say that ben Azzai was a disciple-colleague of Rabbi Akiva and not just a disciple, since he said to him: Do you come, in the second person, rather than using the more formal third person.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘谉 砖诇讜讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讘谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 诇讜讛 诪讗讬 诪驻讬拽 讜注讜讚 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬

搂 The Sages sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: With regard to a son who borrowed money based on the security of his father鈥檚 property during his father鈥檚 lifetime, and whose father subsequently died, his son repossesses the property from the buyers. And this is the most difficult halakha to understand with regard to monetary law. The Gemara clarifies the ruling: If the son borrowed, what does he repossess? He needs to repay a debt, not to collect payment. Moreover, what is the relevance of the buyers in this matter? There is no mention of them in the premise. Rather, if this matter was stated, it is in this manner

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 158

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 158

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗砖转讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗砖讛 诪转讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖讬 讗砖讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘注诇 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转讛 讗砖讛

MISHNA: If the house collapsed upon a husband and upon his wife, and it is unknown who died first, if the wife did not have any children from her husband, then the following claims arise: The husband鈥檚 heirs say: The wife died first and was inherited by her husband, and afterward the husband died, and therefore the husband鈥檚 heirs inherit both his and her property. The wife鈥檚 heirs say: The husband died first and afterward the wife died, and her heirs inherit the property that she brought with her to the marriage and the payment of her marriage contract.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 谞讻住讬诐 讛谞讻谞住讬谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 注诪讛 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘

Beit Shammai say: They divide the property under dispute between them. And Beit Hillel say: The guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The sum of the marriage contract remains in the possession of the husband鈥檚 heirs, since the marriage contract is collected from the husband鈥檚 property. Property that is brought into and taken out of the marriage with her, i.e., usufruct property that remains in the wife鈥檚 possession during her marriage, remains in the possession of the heirs of the woman鈥檚 father.

讙诪壮 讘讞讝拽转 诪讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘注诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗砖讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that according to Beit Hillel, the guaranteed property that the wife brought with her to the marriage retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the guaranteed property remain? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It remains in the possession of the husband鈥檚 heirs, since the husband is liable to compensate his wife for guaranteed property in the event of loss. And Rabbi Elazar says: It remains in the possession of the wife鈥檚 heirs, as the property came from her father鈥檚 house and belongs to her.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讗诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讬专砖 讜讛诇诇讜 讘讗讬谉 诇讬专砖 讬讞诇讜拽讜

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of bar Kappara: They divide the property between them. And likewise bar Kappara teaches in a baraita: Since these heirs come to inherit and those heirs come to inherit, and neither can prove his claim, they divide the property between them.

诪转谞讬壮 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬谉 砖讬讞诇讜拽讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讗谞讬 讘讝讜 砖讛谞讻住讬诐 讘讞讝拽转谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 注讝讗讬 注诇 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讗谞讜 诪爪讟注专讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讘讗转 诇讞诇拽 注诇讬谞讜 讗转 讛砖讜讬谉

MISHNA: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, and it is unknown who died first, the following claims arise: The mother鈥檚 paternal family claims that the son died first, and therefore they inherit from the mother, and the son鈥檚 heirs claim that the mother died first and her son inherited from her, and therefore they inherit from the son. In this case, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that they divide the property between them. Rabbi Akiva said: In this case I concede that the property retains its previous ownership status. Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree?

讙诪壮 讘讞讝拽转 诪讬 专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗诐 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 讘讞讝拽转 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽诐 讘砖讬讟转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讬诇讗 拽诐 专讘讛 讘砖讬讟转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讜讬专讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讞讻讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna states that according to Rabbi Akiva, the property retains its previous ownership status. The Gemara asks: In whose possession does the property remain? Rabbi Ila says: It remains in the possession of the mother鈥檚 heirs. Rabbi Zeira, when he was still in Babylonia, said: It remains in the possession of the son鈥檚 heirs. When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he adopted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, whereas Rabba, in Babylonia, adopted the opinion stated by Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from this incident that the air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise, as when I ascended to Eretz Yisrael I accepted the opinion of Rabbi Ila, who was also from Eretz Yisrael, whereas Rabba, who remained in Babylonia, accepted my former opinion.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讞讝拽讛 谞讞诇讛 讘讗讜转讜 砖讘讟

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the property remains in the possession of the mother鈥檚 heirs? Abaye says: Since the inheritance was initially in the possession of that tribe of the mother, it is not removed from their possession in order to transfer it to the son鈥檚 heirs, who are from a different tribe.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 注讝讗讬 注诇 讛讞诇讜拽讬谉 讗谞讜 诪爪讟注专讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪诇讗讬 注讚讗 讗诪专讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 转诇诪讬讚 讞讘专 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讜讛 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讗转

The mishna teaches: Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva: We are already troubled by those cases where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel are in disagreement. But do you come to bring upon us a disagreement with regard to the case where they agree? Rabbi Shamlai said: That is to say that ben Azzai was a disciple-colleague of Rabbi Akiva and not just a disciple, since he said to him: Do you come, in the second person, rather than using the more formal third person.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讘谉 砖诇讜讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讘谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 诇讜讛 诪讗讬 诪驻讬拽 讜注讜讚 诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬

搂 The Sages sent a ruling from there, Eretz Yisrael: With regard to a son who borrowed money based on the security of his father鈥檚 property during his father鈥檚 lifetime, and whose father subsequently died, his son repossesses the property from the buyers. And this is the most difficult halakha to understand with regard to monetary law. The Gemara clarifies the ruling: If the son borrowed, what does he repossess? He needs to repay a debt, not to collect payment. Moreover, what is the relevance of the buyers in this matter? There is no mention of them in the premise. Rather, if this matter was stated, it is in this manner

Scroll To Top