בבא בתרא קמו

בבא בתרא קמו

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: ״כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״?! וְהָא אִיכָּא שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים! כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שִׁנּוּי וֶסֶת – תְּחִלַּת חוֹלִי.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Is it so that all the days of the poor are terrible? But aren’t there Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor enjoy their meals and rest? Rather, explain this in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: A change of regimen [veset] causes the onset of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the good.

כְּתִיב בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא: כׇּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים. בֶּן סִירָא אוֹמֵר: אַף לֵילוֹת. בִּשְׁפַל גַּגִּים גַּגּוֹ, מִמְּטַר גַּגִּים לְגַגּוֹ. בְּרוּם הָרִים כַּרְמוֹ, מֵעֲפַר כַּרְמוֹ לִכְרָמִים.

It is written in the book of ben Sira: All the days of the poor are terrible. Ben Sira says: The nights as well. His roof is at the lowest point of the roofs; the rain of roofs go onto his roof. His vineyard is at the height of the mountains; the soil of his vineyard goes onto other vineyards.

מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ סִבְלוֹנוֹת לְבֵית חָמִיו; שָׁלַח שָׁם מֵאָה מָנֶה, וְאָכַל שָׁם סְעוּדַת חָתָן אֲפִילּוּ בְּדִינָר – אֵינָן נִגְבִּין. לֹא אָכַל שָׁם סְעוּדַת חָתָן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִגְבִּין. שָׁלַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת מְרוּבִּין שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ עִמָּהּ לְבֵית בַּעְלָהּ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִגְבִּין. סִבְלוֹנוֹת מוּעָטִין שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ – אֵין נִגְבִּין.

MISHNA: With regard to one who sends presents [sivlonot] to his father-in-law’s house following his betrothal, even if he sent there the sum of ten thousand dinars and subsequently ate there a groom’s feast even worth the value of a single dinar, if for any reason the marriage is not effected, the presents are not collected in return by the formerly betrothed man. If he did not eat a groom’s feast there, the presents are collected, as they were not an unconditional gift. If he sent many presents with the stipulation that they return with her to her husband’s house, i.e., to his own house, after the wedding, these are collected if the marriage is not effected. If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: דַּוְקָא דִּינָר, אֲבָל פָּחוֹת מִדִּינָר – לָא. פְּשִׁיטָא, דִּינָר תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִדִּינָר, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי דִּינָר – אוֹרְחָא דְּמִילְּתָא קָתָנֵי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

GEMARA: The mishna states that if the betrothed man ate food worth even a single dinar at his father-in-law’s house, the presents are not returned. Rava says: This applies specifically to the value of a dinar, but if he ate food worth less than the value of a dinar, it is not so. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious, as we learned the halakha in the mishna with reference to the value of a dinar? The Gemara answers: It is stated lest you say that the same is true even in the case of less than a dinar, and the reason that the mishna teaches the halakha with reference to a dinar is that it teaches the matter in the manner in which it typically occurs, and one does not usually eat less than that. Rava therefore teaches us that the formulation of the mishna is precise; the mishna is not referring to the value of less than a dinar.

״אָכַל״ תְּנַן; שָׁתָה מַאי? ״הוּא״ תְּנַן; שְׁלוּחוֹ מַאי? ״שָׁם״ תְּנַן; שִׁגֵּר לוֹ, מַאי?

§ The Gemara asks: We learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a betrothed man who ate at his father-in-law’s house. What is the halakha if he drank there? We learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a case where he, the betrothed, ate there. What is the halakha if his agent ate there? We learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to a case where the betrothed man ate there, at his father-in-law’s house. What is the halakha if his father-in-law sent him a feast to his home?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁשִּׁגֵּר לְבֵית חָמִיו מֵאָה קְרוֹנוֹת שֶׁל כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְשֶׁל כַּדֵּי שֶׁמֶן וְשֶׁל כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וְשֶׁל כְּלֵי זָהָב וְשֶׁל כְּלִי מֵילָת; וְרָכַב בְּשִׂמְחָתוֹ, וְהָלַךְ וְעָמַד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית חָמִיו; וְהוֹצִיאוּ כּוֹס שֶׁל חַמִּין וְשָׁתָה, וּמֵת.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof concerning one these matters, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: There was an incident involving one man who sent to his father-in-law’s house one hundred wagons full of jars of wine and of jars of oil, and one hundred wagons full of silver vessels, and one hundred wagons full of gold vessels, and one hundred wagons full of garments of fine wool [milat]. And he rode over in his state of joy and went and stood by the entrance to his father-in-law’s house. And they brought out to him a cup of hot drink and he drank it, and he subsequently died.

וְזוֹ הֲלָכָה הֶעֱלָה רַבִּי אַחָא שַׂר הַבִּירָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים לְאוּשָׁא, וְאָמְרוּ: סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת – אֵין נִגְבִּין, וְשֶׁאֵין עֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת – נִגְבִּין. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֲפִילּוּ שָׁתָה.

The question arose as to whether the presents must be returned to the betrothed’s heirs. And Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira raised this halakha before the Sages in Usha, and they said: Presents that are typically consumed are not collected, and those that are not typically consumed are collected. One can conclude from this incident that even if the betrothed only drank, some of the presents cannot be reclaimed.

שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִדִּינָר? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּלָא שָׁחֲקִי לֵיהּ מַרְגָּנִיתָא דְּשָׁוְיָא אַלְפָּא זוּזֵי, וְאַשְׁקְיֻהּ. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ שִׁגְּרוּ לוֹ? דִּלְמָא כׇּל פֶּתַח בֵּית חָמִיו – כְּבֵית חָמִיו דָּמֵי.

The Gemara asks: Can you learn from this incident that the presents cannot be claimed even if he ate or drank less than the value of a dinar, since a cup of hot drink is not worth a dinar? Rav Ashi said: Who shall say to us that they did not grind a pearl worth one thousand dinars and serve it to him to drink? The Gemara asks: Can you learn from this incident that even if they sent the feast to him the presents cannot be claimed, as he drank at the entrance and did not enter inside? The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Perhaps the entire entrance of his father-in-law’s house is considered as his father-in-law’s house.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּשׁ? שֶׁבַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִי אִיתַנְהוּ – לְדִידֵיהּ הָדְרִי, בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ שְׁבוּח; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִי אָבְדִי אוֹ מִגַּנְבִי – בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי לֵיהּ, בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּידַהּ שְׁבוּח? תֵּיקוּ.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Rava states that if the betrothed man ate less than the value of a dinar at his father-in-law’s house, and the marriage is not effected, he can collect the presents he sent. What is the halakha concerning whether he must divide the value of the presents, and claim only part of the value, in proportion to the amount he ate? And what is the halakha concerning the enhancement of the value of the presents? Does one say that since the halakha is that if they are extant they are returned to him, therefore they were enhanced under his ownership? Or perhaps, since the halakha is that if they are lost or stolen, the betrothed woman’s family is required to repay him, therefore they were enhanced under her ownership. The Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת, וְלֹא בָּלוּ, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: וְזוֹ הֲלָכָה הֶעֱלָה רַבִּי אַחָא שַׂר הַבִּירָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בְּאוּשָׁא, וְאָמְרוּ: סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָעֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת – אֵין נִגְבִּין, וְשֶׁאֵין עֲשׂוּיִן לִיבְלוֹת – נִגְבִּין. מַאי, לָאו אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא בָּלוּ? לָא, דְּבָלוּ.

Rava raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to presents that are typically consumed, but were not consumed? The Gemara replies: Come and hear a proof: And Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira raised this halakha before the Sages at Usha, and they said: Presents that are typically consumed are not collected, and those that are not typically consumed are collected. What, is it not referring to presents that are typically consumed even though they were not consumed? The Gemara rejects this: No, the mishna is referring to presents that were actually consumed.

תָּא שְׁמַע: סִבְלוֹנוֹת מוּעָטִין שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, וְהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ – אֵין נִגְבִּין! תַּרְגְּמַהּ רָבָא: בְּיֵיבָא וּסְבַכְתָּא.

The Gemara replies: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If he sent a few presents for her to use while she is in her father’s house, they are not collected. This indicates that they cannot be collected in any event, irrespective of whether they were used or not. Rava interpreted the mishna as referring to a snood or hairnet, which are insignificant items that the betrothed man sends without any intention of later collecting them.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁשִּׁגֵּר לְבֵית חָמִיו יַיִן חָדָשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן חָדָשׁ וּכְלֵי פִּשְׁתָּן חָדָשׁ בַּעֲצֶרֶת. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חֲשִׁיבוּתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּאִי טָעֵין, טַעַנְתֵּיהּ טַעֲנָה.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving one man who sent new wine, and new oil, and new linen garments to his father-in-law’s house at the time of Shavuot. The Gemara asks: What is this incident teaching us? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that it teaches us the importance, i.e., the greatness, of Eretz Yisrael, where there is new wine, oil, and linen already available at the time of Shavuot. And if you wish, say instead that it teaches that if the betrothed man claims that he sent these items at the time of Shavuot, his claim is a plausible claim, and there is no reason to question it.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹתְרָנִית הִיא, וְנִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ לְחוּרְבָּה לְבוֹדְקָהּ, אָמַר לָהּ: רֵיחַ צְנוֹן אֲנִי מֵרִיחַ בַּגָּלִיל.

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving one man who was told that his wife, i.e., his betrothed, was one whose sense of smell was impaired, and he followed her into a ruin, carrying a date with him, to check her to see if she could correctly identify the smell. He said to her: I smell the scent of radish in the Galilee.

אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: מִן יָהֵיב לַן מִכּוֹתָבוֹת דִּירִיחוֹ וְאָכַלְנָא בֵּיהּ. נְפַל עֲלַהּ חוּרְבָּה, וּמֵתָה. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נִכְנַס אַחֲרֶיהָ אֶלָּא לְבוֹדְקָהּ, מֵתָה – אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ.

She said to him: Who will give us of the dates of Jericho that I shall eat them, hinting that she smelled the date he had brought with him. The ruin collapsed upon her and she died. The Sages said: Since he went into the ruin after her only to check her sense of smell, and not for the purpose of consummating their marriage, if she dies, he does not inherit from her, as the marriage was not effected, and a man does not inherit from his betrothed.

סִבְלוֹנוֹת מוּעָטִין שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ וְכוּ׳. יָתֵיב רָבִין סָבָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: בֵּין שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא וּבֵין שֶׁמֵּת הוּא, הָדַר הוּא – סִבְלוֹנוֹת הָדְרִי, מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה לָא הָדַר. הָדְרָא בָּהּ אִיהִי – הָדְרָא אֲפִילּוּ כִּישָּׁא דְיַרְקָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְשָׁמִין לָהֶן דְּמֵי בָשָׂר בְּזוֹל. עַד כַּמָּה ״בְּזוֹל״? עַד תִּילְתָּא.

§ The mishna teaches: If he sent a few presents for her to use while in her father’s house, they are not collected. Ravin the Elder was sitting before Rav Pappa and he was sitting and saying: Whether she died, or whether he died, or whether he retracted his agreement to the betrothal and divorced her, the presents return to the betrothed man or his heirs, but food and drink do not return. If she retracted her agreement to the betrothal and requested a divorce, even a bundle of vegetables returns to the betrothed man. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: When the presents are returned, the court appraises for the betrothed woman’s family the sum that they must repay for any meat he gave her, according to a reduced assessment of the value of the meat and not according to the price the betrothed man paid. How much less is the reduced assessment? Up to one-third less than he paid.

מַתְנִי׳ שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים, וְשִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת. לֹא שִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא – אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת.

MISHNA: With regard to a person on his death-bed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since is it evident that he did not intend to leave himself without means of support.

גְּמָ׳ מַאן תְּנָא דְּאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר אוּמְדָּנָא? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנוֹ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת בְּנוֹ, וְעָמַד וְכָתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְאַחֵר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בְּנוֹ – מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹ קַיָּים – לֹא הָיָה כּוֹתְבָן.

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that we follow the principle of assessing a person’s intentions, even when he did not expressly state them? Rav Naḥman said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 5:9): In a case where one’s son went overseas and he heard that his son died, and then he arose and wrote a document granting all of his property to another, and then his son came back, his gift to the other people is a valid gift. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: His gift is not a valid gift, as had he known that his son was alive he would not have written a document granting them his property.

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי הִיא – דְּתַנְיָא, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּקוֹלָר, וְאָמַר: ״כִּתְבוּ גֵּט לְאִשְׁתִּי״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ יִכְתְּבוּ וְיִתְּנוּ. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר: אַף הַמְפָרֵשׁ וְהַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁיָירָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְסוּכָּן.

Rav Sheshet said: This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, as it is taught in a mishna (Gittin 65b): Initially the Sages would say: With regard to one who was taken out in a collar to be executed and said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, these people should write and give her the document. Although he did not explicitly say the word give, this is understood to have been his intention, to release her from the necessity to perform levirate marriage or ḥalitza. They then said that this halakha applies even to one who sets sail and one who departs with a caravan to a far-off place. A bill of divorce is given to his wife under these circumstances even if her husband said just: Write. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even in the case of one who is dangerously ill who gives that instruction, they write the bill of divorce and give it to his wife.

וְרַב נַחְמָן – מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֵׁזוּרִי? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר ״כִּתְבוּ״. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת – מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מוֹקֵים לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא? אוּמְדָּנָא דְּמוֹכַח שָׁאנֵי.

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Naḥman does not interpret the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman holds that it is different there, as he said: Write a bill of divorce, thereby partially stating his intention to divorce her, whereas in the case of the mishna here, he did not express his intention at all. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Sheshet does not interpret the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara answers: An assessment of a person’s intentions that is clearly proven is different, and it is possible that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya does not apply this principle where the person’s intentions are less evident.

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה חוֹלֶה וּמוּטָל בַּמִּטָּה, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: נְכָסֶיךָ לְמִי? וְאָמַר לָהֶן:

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught (Tosefta, Ketubot 4:15): If one was ill and bedridden, and those present said to him: To whom shall your property be given? And he said to them: