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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 14, 2017 | 讟状讝 讘讗讚专 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 51

A woman聽can’t create a chazaka on her husband’s property. 聽But can she use a document as proof? 聽Are we concerned that she had hidden money that belongs to him and he is using the “sale” as a way to get that money back and really never meant to be giving her the field? 聽 In what cases are we concerned about this type of situation – a sale, a loan?

讜讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪专 诪砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪住转讘专讗 讗诪专讬 讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝

but the judges of the exile said that one can establish the presumption of ownership. Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the judges of the exile. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Has the Master retracted his halakha that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of a married woman? Rav said to them: I said that the opinion of the judges of the exile is reasonable, as the presumption of ownership can be established with regard the property of a married woman under certain circumstances. The Gemara comments: This is like that ruling of Rav Yosef with regard to one who possesses the land for three years after the death of the husband.

讜诇讗 诇讗砖讛 讘谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 诪讝讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讗讻诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讞讚 诇讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诇诪讝讜谞讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband鈥檚 property. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since she has the right to sustenance from her husband鈥檚 property, she is enjoying the profits as payment of her sustenance, so her use of the property does not establish the presumption of ownership. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in the event that he designated another parcel of land for her sustenance. The mishna teaches that even if she enjoys the profits of a second field for three years, she does not establish the presumption of ownership of that field.

讛讗 专讗讬讛 讬砖 诇讬诪讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

The Gemara asks: By inference, the wife has the ability to bring proof of her ownership and take possession of her husband鈥檚 field. Why is this proof valid? Let him say that he desires to expose her concealed money. If he offers to sell the field to her and she agrees, it will be discovered that she has money of which he had been unaware. His intention was never to sell the property, but to claim money to which he is entitled.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 专讗讬讛 讬砖 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛

Can one conclude from this mishna that in the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it, and we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money? The Gemara answers: No, as one may say that the inference from the mishna that if she has proof then she has ownership rights is the halakha only with regard to a deed of gift, as, if her husband gave her the field as a gift, he cannot claim that he did so in order to expose her concealed money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪专 讙讘谉 讘讗讜专转讗 讘转讞讜诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗诪专讬转讜 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: The Master was not with us in the evening in the study hall that is within the boundaries of the town, where we said a superior matter. Rav Huna said to him: What superior matter did you say? Rav Na岣an responded: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it, and we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇 讝讜讝讬 诪讛讻讗 讜转讬拽谞讬 讘砖讟专讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

Rav Huna said to him: That is obvious; remove the money from here and she will acquire the property by means of the bill of sale, as, even if she has not yet given him the money, she acquires the land by means of the bill of sale. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, can be acquired by means of giving money, by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession of it?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 诪讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 砖讚讬 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讻讜专讛 讜谞转讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this that Shmuel says: They taught that the document alone suffices only if the transaction is with a deed of gift, but if the transaction is with a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire the property until he gives him its money? Rav Huna responded: But didn鈥檛 Rav Hamnuna raise an objection to this, based on this following baraita: How is acquisition by means of giving a document performed? If he wrote it for him on paper or earthenware, then even though the paper or the earthenware is not worth even one peruta, if he writes: My field is sold to you, or: My field is acquired by you as a gift, it is thereby sold or given. This indicates that a document suffices to complete an acquisition both in the case of a sale and a gift.

讜诇讗讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 专注转讛

Rav Na岣an responded: But is it not so that he, Rav Hamnuna, raises the objection and he himself resolves it? The baraita states its ruling with regard to one who sells his field due to its poor quality. The seller wants to be rid of his field due to its low value, and would like to transfer ownership of it as quickly as possible. In this case, writing a document suffices to complete the acquisition. By contrast, in standard cases it does not. Since the acquisition of a field requires monetary payment in addition to a bill of sale, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement, that if one sells a field to his wife the sale is valid and we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money, is a novelty.

专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘诪转谞讛 讘拽砖 诇讬转谞讛 诇讜 讜诇诪讛 讻转讘 诇讜 讘诇砖讜谉 诪讻专 讻讚讬 诇讬驻讜转 讻讞讜

The Gemara notes that in interpreting this baraita, Rav Beivai would conclude in the name of Rav Na岣an, or, according to another version, Rav Ashi says: Why does a document suffice for him to acquire the land? It is because it is assumed that he wanted to give it to him as a gift. And why did he write the document for him employing the terminology of a sale? It was in order to enhance the power of the one acquiring the land, since with regard to a property guarantee, i.e., a document that states that if the property is seized by the seller鈥檚 creditor, the seller will reimburse the buyer for his loss, a bill of sale is superior to a deed of gift.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讜讛 诪谉 讛注讘讚 讜砖讞专专讜 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

The Gemara raises an objection to the ruling of Rav Na岣an, that we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money, from a baraita: If one borrowed money from his own slave and then frees him, or if one borrowed money from his wife and then divorces her, they do not have any claim on him, and he need not repay them. What is the reason for this? Is it not because we say that he desires to expose their concealed money, and his taking of the loan was a mere artifice to claim money to which he was entitled?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讜讜讬讬讛 谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, because there is an additional reason to think it was an artifice, as it is uncomfortable for him to make applicable to himself the verse: 鈥淭he rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7). It is therefore reasonable to posit that his intention was not to borrow money, but to expose the concealed money that was in the possession of his slave or wife. This concern does not apply to one who sells property to his wife, and therefore the sale is valid.

砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling to those in the study hall: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it,

讜讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘专诐 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 讗诪专讜 讘诪转谞讛 讘拽砖 诇讬转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇诪讛 讻转讘 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 诪讻专 讻讚讬 诇讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讞讛

and as long as they remain married, the husband enjoys the profits, as he would with any usufruct property. But Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Abbahu and all of the great Sages of the generation said that the assumption is that the husband wanted to give it to her as a gift. And why did he write the deed for her employing terminology indicating that it is for the sake of a sale? It was in order to enhance her power.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讜讛 诪谉 讛注讘讚 讜砖讞专专讜 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the ruling that the wife acquires the property: If one borrowed from his own slave and then freed him, or if one borrowed from his wife and then divorced her, they do not have any claim on him, and he need not repay them. What is the reason for this? Is it not because we say that he desired to expose their concealed money, and his taking of the loan was merely an artifice to claim money to which he was entitled? Similarly, the assumption should be that his sale to her was merely an artifice.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诇讬砖讜讬 讗讬谞讬砖 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, because there is an additional reason to think it was an artifice, as it is uncomfortable for a person to be described by the verse: 鈥淭he rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7). It is therefore reasonable to posit that his intention was not to borrow money, but to expose the concealed money that was in the possession of his slave or wife. This concern does not apply to one who sells property to his wife, and therefore the sale is valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛 讜讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘诪转谞讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara quotes a related statement. Rav says: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it, and the husband enjoys the profits. In the case of one who gives a married woman the field as a gift, she has acquired it and the husband does not enjoy the profits, since he gave it to her completely. And Rabbi Elazar says: In both this case and that case she has acquired it, and the husband does not enjoy the profits.

注讘讚 专讘 讞住讚讗 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谉 注讜拽讘讗 讜专讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 讘谞讬 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专 专讘专讘讬 讜注讘讬讚 讻讝讜讟专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讻专讘专讘讬 注讘讚讬 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda performed an action in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and did not allow a husband to enjoy the profits of a field he sold to his wife. Rabban Ukva and Rabban Ne岣mya, the sons of Rav鈥檚 daughters, said to Rav 岣sda: Does the Master abandon a greater Sage, i.e., Rav, the greatest Sage of his generation, and act in accordance with the opinion of a lesser Sage, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, who was Rav鈥檚 student? Rav 岣sda said to them: But I too am acting in accordance with the opinion of a greater Sage, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In both this case and that case she has acquired it, and the husband does not enjoy the profits. I am consequently not relying exclusively on Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion, but also on that of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 拽谞转讛 讜讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘诪转谞讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 转专转讬

Rava says that the halakha is: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has not acquired it, and the husband enjoys the profits. In the case of one who gives a married woman the field as a gift, she has acquired it and the husband does not enjoy the profits. The Gemara asks with regard to the first halakha: Can these two ostensibly contradictory rulings be given? Rava鈥檚 statement that the wife has not acquired the field means that the husband still owns it, while his statement that the husband enjoys the profits, i.e., he merely enjoys the profits but does not own the field, indicates that the field itself is owned by the wife.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪注讜转 讟诪讜谞讬谉 讻讗谉 讘诪注讜转 砖讗讬谉 讟诪讜谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注讜转 讟诪讜谞讬谉 诇讗 拽谞转讛 诪注讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 讟诪讜谞讬谉 拽谞转讛

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, because Rava is referring to two different cases. Here, where he says that she has not acquired the land, he is referring to a case where her money was concealed, and the sale was an artifice to expose it; while there, where he says that she acquires the land, he is referring to a case where she had money that is not concealed. As Rav Yehuda says: If she purchased the field with concealed money, she has not acquired it; if she purchased it with money that is not concealed, she has acquired it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诇讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 拽讘诇 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜讗诐 诪转讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讛 拽讘诇 诪谉 讛注讘讚 讬讞讝讬专 诇注讘讚 讜讗诐 诪转 讬讞讝讬专 诇专讘讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not accept deposits from women, and not from slaves, and not from children. Since it is likely that they do not own property, they might have taken the item without authorization from their husband, master, or parent, respectively. Consequently, one should not accept the deposit. If, however, one accepted a deposit from a woman, he must return it to the woman, as he cannot be certain that it is not hers. And if the woman died, he must return it to her husband, as he is her heir. If one accepted a deposit from a slave, he must return it to the slave, since it might not belong to the master. And if the slave died, he must return it to his master.

  • 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 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 51

讜讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 诪讞讝讬拽讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪专 诪砖诪注转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪住转讘专讗 讗诪专讬 讻讚专讘 讬讜住祝

but the judges of the exile said that one can establish the presumption of ownership. Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the judges of the exile. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Has the Master retracted his halakha that one cannot establish the presumption of ownership with regard to the property of a married woman? Rav said to them: I said that the opinion of the judges of the exile is reasonable, as the presumption of ownership can be established with regard the property of a married woman under certain circumstances. The Gemara comments: This is like that ruling of Rav Yosef with regard to one who possesses the land for three years after the death of the husband.

讜诇讗 诇讗砖讛 讘谞讻住讬 讘注诇讛 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讬 诪讝讜谞讬 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讗讻诇讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讞讚 诇讛 讗专注讗 讗讞专讬转讬 诇诪讝讜谞讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And a wife does not have the ability to establish the presumption of ownership with regard to her husband鈥檚 property. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? Since she has the right to sustenance from her husband鈥檚 property, she is enjoying the profits as payment of her sustenance, so her use of the property does not establish the presumption of ownership. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in the event that he designated another parcel of land for her sustenance. The mishna teaches that even if she enjoys the profits of a second field for three years, she does not establish the presumption of ownership of that field.

讛讗 专讗讬讛 讬砖 诇讬诪讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

The Gemara asks: By inference, the wife has the ability to bring proof of her ownership and take possession of her husband鈥檚 field. Why is this proof valid? Let him say that he desires to expose her concealed money. If he offers to sell the field to her and she agrees, it will be discovered that she has money of which he had been unaware. His intention was never to sell the property, but to claim money to which he is entitled.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 专讗讬讛 讬砖 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛

Can one conclude from this mishna that in the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it, and we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money? The Gemara answers: No, as one may say that the inference from the mishna that if she has proof then she has ownership rights is the halakha only with regard to a deed of gift, as, if her husband gave her the field as a gift, he cannot claim that he did so in order to expose her concealed money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪专 讙讘谉 讘讗讜专转讗 讘转讞讜诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬诇讬 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗诪专讬转讜 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: The Master was not with us in the evening in the study hall that is within the boundaries of the town, where we said a superior matter. Rav Huna said to him: What superior matter did you say? Rav Na岣an responded: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it, and we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇 讝讜讝讬 诪讛讻讗 讜转讬拽谞讬 讘砖讟专讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

Rav Huna said to him: That is obvious; remove the money from here and she will acquire the property by means of the bill of sale, as, even if she has not yet given him the money, she acquires the land by means of the bill of sale. Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, can be acquired by means of giving money, by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession of it?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 诪讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 砖讚讬 拽谞讜讬讛 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讻讜专讛 讜谞转讜谞讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: But wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this that Shmuel says: They taught that the document alone suffices only if the transaction is with a deed of gift, but if the transaction is with a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire the property until he gives him its money? Rav Huna responded: But didn鈥檛 Rav Hamnuna raise an objection to this, based on this following baraita: How is acquisition by means of giving a document performed? If he wrote it for him on paper or earthenware, then even though the paper or the earthenware is not worth even one peruta, if he writes: My field is sold to you, or: My field is acquired by you as a gift, it is thereby sold or given. This indicates that a document suffices to complete an acquisition both in the case of a sale and a gift.

讜诇讗讜 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 专注转讛

Rav Na岣an responded: But is it not so that he, Rav Hamnuna, raises the objection and he himself resolves it? The baraita states its ruling with regard to one who sells his field due to its poor quality. The seller wants to be rid of his field due to its low value, and would like to transfer ownership of it as quickly as possible. In this case, writing a document suffices to complete the acquisition. By contrast, in standard cases it does not. Since the acquisition of a field requires monetary payment in addition to a bill of sale, Rav Na岣an鈥檚 statement, that if one sells a field to his wife the sale is valid and we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money, is a novelty.

专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘诪转谞讛 讘拽砖 诇讬转谞讛 诇讜 讜诇诪讛 讻转讘 诇讜 讘诇砖讜谉 诪讻专 讻讚讬 诇讬驻讜转 讻讞讜

The Gemara notes that in interpreting this baraita, Rav Beivai would conclude in the name of Rav Na岣an, or, according to another version, Rav Ashi says: Why does a document suffice for him to acquire the land? It is because it is assumed that he wanted to give it to him as a gift. And why did he write the document for him employing the terminology of a sale? It was in order to enhance the power of the one acquiring the land, since with regard to a property guarantee, i.e., a document that states that if the property is seized by the seller鈥檚 creditor, the seller will reimburse the buyer for his loss, a bill of sale is superior to a deed of gift.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讜讛 诪谉 讛注讘讚 讜砖讞专专讜 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讬

The Gemara raises an objection to the ruling of Rav Na岣an, that we do not say that he desires to expose her concealed money, from a baraita: If one borrowed money from his own slave and then frees him, or if one borrowed money from his wife and then divorces her, they do not have any claim on him, and he need not repay them. What is the reason for this? Is it not because we say that he desires to expose their concealed money, and his taking of the loan was a mere artifice to claim money to which he was entitled?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讜讜讬讬讛 谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, because there is an additional reason to think it was an artifice, as it is uncomfortable for him to make applicable to himself the verse: 鈥淭he rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7). It is therefore reasonable to posit that his intention was not to borrow money, but to expose the concealed money that was in the possession of his slave or wife. This concern does not apply to one who sells property to his wife, and therefore the sale is valid.

砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Avin sent a ruling to those in the study hall: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it,

讜讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘专诐 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讜讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 讛讚讜专 讗诪专讜 讘诪转谞讛 讘拽砖 诇讬转谞讜 诇讛 讜诇诪讛 讻转讘 诇讛 诇砖讜诐 诪讻专 讻讚讬 诇讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讞讛

and as long as they remain married, the husband enjoys the profits, as he would with any usufruct property. But Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Abbahu and all of the great Sages of the generation said that the assumption is that the husband wanted to give it to her as a gift. And why did he write the deed for her employing terminology indicating that it is for the sake of a sale? It was in order to enhance her power.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讜讛 诪谉 讛注讘讚 讜砖讞专专讜 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讙专砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讝讜讝讬 讛讜讗 讚讘注讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the ruling that the wife acquires the property: If one borrowed from his own slave and then freed him, or if one borrowed from his wife and then divorced her, they do not have any claim on him, and he need not repay them. What is the reason for this? Is it not because we say that he desired to expose their concealed money, and his taking of the loan was merely an artifice to claim money to which he was entitled? Similarly, the assumption should be that his sale to her was merely an artifice.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讗 诇讬砖讜讬 讗讬谞讬砖 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, because there is an additional reason to think it was an artifice, as it is uncomfortable for a person to be described by the verse: 鈥淭he rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7). It is therefore reasonable to posit that his intention was not to borrow money, but to expose the concealed money that was in the possession of his slave or wife. This concern does not apply to one who sells property to his wife, and therefore the sale is valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 拽谞转讛 讜讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘诪转谞讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara quotes a related statement. Rav says: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has acquired it, and the husband enjoys the profits. In the case of one who gives a married woman the field as a gift, she has acquired it and the husband does not enjoy the profits, since he gave it to her completely. And Rabbi Elazar says: In both this case and that case she has acquired it, and the husband does not enjoy the profits.

注讘讚 专讘 讞住讚讗 注讜讘讚讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谉 注讜拽讘讗 讜专讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 讘谞讬 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 砖讘讬拽 诪专 专讘专讘讬 讜注讘讬讚 讻讝讜讟专讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讗谞讗 谞诪讬 讻专讘专讘讬 注讘讚讬 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

The Gemara relates: Rav 岣sda performed an action in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and did not allow a husband to enjoy the profits of a field he sold to his wife. Rabban Ukva and Rabban Ne岣mya, the sons of Rav鈥檚 daughters, said to Rav 岣sda: Does the Master abandon a greater Sage, i.e., Rav, the greatest Sage of his generation, and act in accordance with the opinion of a lesser Sage, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, who was Rav鈥檚 student? Rav 岣sda said to them: But I too am acting in accordance with the opinion of a greater Sage, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: In both this case and that case she has acquired it, and the husband does not enjoy the profits. I am consequently not relying exclusively on Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 opinion, but also on that of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 拽谞转讛 讜讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讘诪转谞讛 拽谞转讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 转专转讬

Rava says that the halakha is: In the case of one who sells a field to his wife, she has not acquired it, and the husband enjoys the profits. In the case of one who gives a married woman the field as a gift, she has acquired it and the husband does not enjoy the profits. The Gemara asks with regard to the first halakha: Can these two ostensibly contradictory rulings be given? Rava鈥檚 statement that the wife has not acquired the field means that the husband still owns it, while his statement that the husband enjoys the profits, i.e., he merely enjoys the profits but does not own the field, indicates that the field itself is owned by the wife.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪注讜转 讟诪讜谞讬谉 讻讗谉 讘诪注讜转 砖讗讬谉 讟诪讜谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注讜转 讟诪讜谞讬谉 诇讗 拽谞转讛 诪注讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 讟诪讜谞讬谉 拽谞转讛

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, because Rava is referring to two different cases. Here, where he says that she has not acquired the land, he is referring to a case where her money was concealed, and the sale was an artifice to expose it; while there, where he says that she acquires the land, he is referring to a case where she had money that is not concealed. As Rav Yehuda says: If she purchased the field with concealed money, she has not acquired it; if she purchased it with money that is not concealed, she has acquired it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪拽讘诇讬谉 驻拽讚讜谞讜转 诇讗 诪谉 讛谞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛转讬谞讜拽讜转 拽讘诇 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜讗诐 诪转讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇讛 拽讘诇 诪谉 讛注讘讚 讬讞讝讬专 诇注讘讚 讜讗诐 诪转 讬讞讝讬专 诇专讘讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not accept deposits from women, and not from slaves, and not from children. Since it is likely that they do not own property, they might have taken the item without authorization from their husband, master, or parent, respectively. Consequently, one should not accept the deposit. If, however, one accepted a deposit from a woman, he must return it to the woman, as he cannot be certain that it is not hers. And if the woman died, he must return it to her husband, as he is her heir. If one accepted a deposit from a slave, he must return it to the slave, since it might not belong to the master. And if the slave died, he must return it to his master.

Scroll To Top