When can a minor sell inherited property? TB Baba Batra 155

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 155 answers the question when can a minor sell inherited property.

“It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to the following matter: From when, i.e., from what age, can a minor sell his deceased father’s property? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: From the time he is eighteen years old, and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana says that Rav Naḥman says: From the time he is twenty years old.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even though a 13-year-old boy reaches the age of majority and is responsible for his actions to be punished, a young man can’t sell inherited property until he reaches the age of 18 or 20 depending upon Rava or Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana understanding of Rav Naḥman’s position. The Yad Ramah explains why a guardian is put in charge of the property until the teenager reaches the age of 18 or 20. This teenager does not have an appreciation of the property and how he can benefit from it for him because he only inherited it. The land wasn’t gifted to him. He didn’t buy the land. He didn’t work the land. Consequently, the court appoints a governor until the teenager matures and can appreciate the inheritance. Once he has this appreciation gain by maturity, he may sell the property.

Nevertheless, this is not a hard and fast rule. If the 13-year-old teenager boy or a 12- and one-day year-old girl has a firm grasp and understands business, s/he may sell the inherited property.

“Giddel bar Menashya sent an inquiry to Rava: Let our teacher instruct us: With regard to a girl who is fourteen years and one day old who understands the nature of business negotiations, what is the halakha? Can she sell property that she inherited from her father? Rava sent a reply to Giddel bar Menashya: If she understands the nature of business negotiations her purchase is a valid purchase and her sale is a valid sale.

“The Gemara asks: But Giddel could have sent this question to Rava with regard to a boy. Why did he not do so? The Gemara answers: The incident that took place, took place in this way. The Gemara asks: But he could have sent this question to Rava with regard to a girl who is twelve years and one day old, at which age a girl reaches her majority. Why did he not do so? The Gemara answers: The incident that took place, took place in this way.” (Sefaria.com translation)

A Thanksgiving meditation

 This past Monday I participated in an interfaith Thanksgiving service at the Community Church in Douglaston. Rev. Albert Poltgieter began his sermon with a video “Sitting in the Thanksgiving chair.”  I thought I would share this video with you as a meditation spark to help make Thanksgiving more meaningful. The source of this video is some Christian group so you can disregard the final quote from the Christian Testament.

https://www.crosswalk.com/video/thanksgiving-chair.html

 

After viewing this video take the following three steps:

1.    Take an inventory of all the things you’re thankful for and count your blessings. You can’t be thankful for everything, but he can always find things to be thankful for.

2.    Acknowledge and thank God as you understand God for those blessings

3.    Take action by sharing your blessings with others

 

Happy Thanksgiving,

#Thanksgiving#devartorah

 In 2016 Wanda Dench sent a text inviting her grandson to her Thanksgiving dinner, not knowing he’d recently changed his phone number. The text instead went to a stranger, Jamal. Jamal didn’t have plans, and so, after clarifying who he was, asked if he could still come to dinner. Wanda said, “Of course you can.” Jamal joined the family dinner and what has since become a yearly tradition for him. A mistaken invitation became an annual blessing

Wanda’s kindness inviting a stranger reminds me of the Torah instructions how we should treat the stranger and the poor. God commanded us to be generous and share with others. Our ancestors were to include the foreigner and the poor in their celebrations and feasts (Deuteronomy 16:9-12; 26:8-11) and to give a tithe to share God’s provisions and abundance with them (26:12). They were to treat foreigners as if they were native born Israelites and love them as they love themselves (Leviticus 19:34; 24:22; Deuteronomy 27:19)

For Wanda, inviting Jamaal to her family for Thanksgiving dinner resulted in an unexpected blessing of lasting friendship that was a great deal of encouragement to her after her husband’s death. When we reach out to others, not because of what we might receive, but because of God’s love flowing through us, we receive far greater blessing and encouragement.

Sharing our blessings from Thanksgiving through Hanukkah is easy. Our entire country is inspired to give generously. If we can be as generous after the holidays as we are now, then every day will be a thanks giving day.

Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Greene

A prayer if you can't be thankful this Thanksgiving 

Are you excited about the upcoming Thanksgiving celebrations? Tables will be filled with Turkey and stuffing, mashed potatoes, and pumpkin pie. Synagogues everywhere will fill their sanctuaries with signs of God’s bounty. And if your celebrations are anything like mine, you may go around the table, each person voicing why they are thankful. Thanksgiving is about recognizing the good things that God brings into your life. We recognize our blessings and articulate our thanks.

But what happens if you don’t feel like giving thanks? What happens if you are going through a time of loss, grief, or deep suffering? What if, like Job, you feel that everything around you has completely fallen apart, and you are struggling with the apparent absence of God? Do you smile and fake it? Or is thanksgiving completely out of the question? Each year, people struggle with this question. Are you struggling with this question today? If we think that thanksgiving is about noticing our surrounding blessings, then we might think that suffering and loss invalidate it. Worse yet, we may feel that suffering and loss are contrary to the life of faith. So, we judge ourselves because we don’t feel thankful. If we just had more faith, we say, these struggles or losses wouldn’t sting so much.

 

But here’s the thing about thanksgiving. True thanksgiving, as a spiritual discipline, is not about what happens to us; it’s about who is with us. We give thanks deeply not because God has removed all the hardships and turmoil from our lives but because He enters them. Even if we don’t recognize Him—even if we can’t see Him—because of our covenant, we can trust that, in some way, He is there. And it’s because that is who God is for us—because that was the expression of God’s redeeming power—that we can recognize the mercy and the grace that surrounds us. 

 

Thanksgiving isn’t about plastering over our raw emotions under the guise of fake positivity; faith doesn’t run on “fake it till you make it.” You are never asked to pretend to be thankful or joyful when you feel the opposite. God knows how you feel. And so true Thanksgiving is about daring to believe that God is with you and then bringing to him the fullness of who you are and how you feel in this moment.

 

I hope that everyone has an amazing Thanksgiving celebration. And if you can rejoice in grand things, in great things, in blessings that have surrounded you or your family, then I hope that you are able to do that as robustly as you can. But if you find yourself dealing with a loss, or grief, or a deep struggle, such that positive exultations just don’t ring true for you, then I pray you rest in a deeper thanksgiving. I pray that you recognize the truth that the suffering and sympathetic Lord is on your side. 

 

A Prayer:

Avinu shebashemayim, our Gracious and Loving God,

I want to be thankful. I want to be filled with joy and happiness. I want to radiate light in this world and draw people to the blessings you provide. But Lord, at this moment, I am at a loss. I struggle with a profound and soul-deep sense of suffering, grief, and heartache. In faith I know that you are the protector, the provider, and the healer, but I don’t feel those things in this moment. Lord, I pray for a touch from your hand. I ask that you reach into my life with a whisper of comfort and ease. Give me a vision of your presence, O Lord.

Lord, as I say these things, I thank you that I can say these things. I can bring my burdens to you because you are a God who enters the thick messiness of my life. Even If I don’t see you or feel you, you are with me, and because you are with me, I can unburden my soul to you. And so in some small way, O Lord, I give thanks, not because you surround me with miracles or because my situation of loss and struggle will magically vanish, but I give thanks because I stand not alone. You sympathize with my weakness, you hear my cry, you match my tears with your own. Lord, I pray you help me breath deeply this loving reality. Help me to live in this truth.

The words you choose matter TB Baba Batra 153

A person on his deathbed’s (shekhiv mayra’-שְׁכִיב מְרַע) gift is given on the condition that he dies. If he recovers, he can take back his gift. A healthy person’s gift is a revocable. Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 153 discusses the language of the gift document the shehiv mayra’ uses. A disagreement between Rav and Shmuel on the intent of the language.

“§ The Gemara relates: There was a deed pertaining to a certain gift of a person on his deathbed, in which it was written that the gift is given both in life and in death (בַּחַיִּים וּבַמָּוֶת). In such a case, Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed, and if he recovers he can retract it. And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person, and he cannot retract it.

“The Gemara explains: Rav says: It is like the gift of a person on his deathbed. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in death. This means that the giver is saying to him that the gift should take effect after his death, and that which is written in the deed, that the gift is given in life, is merely an auspicious omen, expressing hope that the giver will live.

“And Shmuel says: It is like the gift of a healthy person. This can be inferred from the fact that it is written in the deed that the gift is given in life. This means that the giver is saying that the gift takes effect during his life, i.e., immediately. And that which he wrote, that the gift is given in death, is like one who says: From now and for evermore, i.e., that the gift is not retractable. The Sages of Neharde’a say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What happens if the document reads during one’s life (מֵחַיִּים) instead of in life (בַּחַיִּים)? Rava rules that this new language changes everything. “Rava said: And if it was written in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death, the recipient acquires the gift and it cannot be retracted, as this term indicates that the gift takes effect while the giver still lives.” (Sefaria.org translation) When signing a contract, you better make sure you understand the words before agreeing to it.

We believe that words have power. God created the entire universe with 10 statements (Genesis 1)   The following story shows that we should also watch what we say.

“The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who wrote in the deed that the gift is given during life and in death. She came before Rava. Rava acted with regard to her case in accordance with his halakhic ruling, and he ruled that she cannot retract the gift. She did not accept the ruling, and she constantly troubled him, saying that he had not judged her case properly.

“Rava said to Rav Pappa, his scribe, son of Rav Ḥanan: Go, write for her a ruling in her favor, and write in the ruling the phrase: He may hire replacements at their expense, or deceive them to get them to return to work. This is a phrase from the mishna (Bava Metzia 75b) that discusses the ruling in the case of one who hired laborers to perform a task that cannot be delayed, and they quit. Rava intended this phrase to indicate to the court that the ruling was merely a ruse in order to persuade the woman to leave. The woman understood the ruse. She said: May his ship sink; you are deceiving me. Rava had his clothes immersed in water so that the curse should be fulfilled in this alternative manner, but even so he was not saved from the sinking of his ship.” (Sefaria.org translation)

This woman cursed Rava and her curse came true. From the story is seems to me that Rava drowned. Nevertheless, I found this interesting tidbit on Wikipedia. “Jewish tradition holds that Rava and his study companion Abaye are buried in a cave shown on Har Yavnit (Ovnit).” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rava_(amora)) I don’t know whether he drowned and they recovered his body or he died and was buried like Jews of his era. Either way we should be very careful what we say because words can never be retracted. Words have the power of their own.

 

 

 

 

 

 We been studying the laws of a person on his deathbed (shekhiv mayra’-שְׁכִיב מְרַע). This person may transfer his assets to another person by an oral statement without the normally required kinyan, a formal act of  acquisition. Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 147 wants to know where this halakha is derived from the Torah. The Gemara provides four different suggestions. All quotes come from Sefaria.org translation.

1.    . 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: “If a man dies, and he does not have a son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The term “you shall cause…to pass” 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.

2.    Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: “And if he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers” (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 “you shall give” 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.

3.    Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: “In 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” (II Kings 20:1). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property. (Notice that we usually don’t derive halakha from the books of the prophets and say that they are Torah in origin.-gg)

4.    Rami bar Yeḥezkel says: The halakha with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed is derived from here: “And 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” (II Samuel 17:23). This indicates that merely by issuing an instruction, a person on his deathbed can transfer ownership of his property. (Read the chapter why Ahithophel committed suicide. He is only one a possibly four people that Bible records the person committing suicide.-gg)

Tosefot ד"ה מִנַּיִן לְמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁהִיא מִן הַתּוֹרָה immediately notes that the Gemara understands that the laws of the shekhiv mayra’ are really a rabbinic degree. For even Rav Naḥman will say that it is a rabbinic institution on side b of our daf (refer back to the second suggestion above-gg). “The Gemara resumes the discussion with regard to the gifts of a person on his deathbed: And Rava says that Rav Naḥman 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… The Gemara replies: Rav Naḥman maintains that although this gift is not effective by Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages made it a halakha with the force of Torah law.” (Sefaria.org translation) All the above verses are only asmakhta, a support as opposed to an explicit verse.

 

 

Caught a cold? It's your own fault TB Baba Batra 144

The Gemara daf TB Baba Batra 144b discusses who pays the medical bills. Here’s the back story. The father dies and leaves his estate to his sons. The estate has yet been divided amongst the sons when one of them falls ill. Who pays the medical bills? Does the patient pay or does the estate pay?

§ The mishna teaches: If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. Ravin sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Ela: They taught this only in a case where he became ill through negligence. But if he became ill through circumstances beyond his control, the cost of the treatment is paid from the middle, i.e., from the common inheritance. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is considered negligence? This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: All occurrences that befall man are in the hand of Heaven except for colds and heat strokes [paḥim], from which one is able to protect himself, as it is stated: “Colds and snares are on the path of the crooked; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5).

Bitakhon, trust or confidence, in God is one of the foundations of Judaism. A Jew is required to put his trust in God and be sure that God will stand by his side and help them and in all his needs. Nevertheless, as God’s partner we must play an active role in our life and not just rely on whatever happens, happens. We shouldn’t rely upon miracles 

Moshe Luzzato wrote: “Perhaps you will say: behold we see that the sages everywhere obligated a man to guard himself well and not put himself in danger even if he is a righteous person with many merits. For instance: "everything is in the hands of heaven except colds and heat strokes" (Ketubot 30a) and the Torah says "you shall guard yourselves very carefully" (Devarim 4:15). Hence one should not decide to "trust in G-d" in all situations, and in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berachot 3, see also Chulin 142a) they said: "even when performing a Mitzva!". Mesilat Yesharim 9:10 (Sefaria.org translation)

In other words, when your mother says put on the sweater because it’s cold outside so you won’t catch a cold, you should listen to her.

 

 

 

 

:

 

 

The most common human sacrifice #Vayera#parashathashavu#devartorah

 Ever since the binding of Isaac and God’s rejection of human sacrifice in this week’s Torah portion Vayera, Judaism has forbidden it. Although the actual practice has been abolished, Gregg Krech wrote about the most common human sacrifice we still follow today.

“When we find ourselves in circumstances which are unpleasant or disappointing there are two common strategies our minds use to escape:   We idealize the future or romanticize the past.

“The first strategy is to think about the future and idealistically imagine what our lives might be like down the road.  “Once X happens, then I will be happy.”  X can be the vision you have of living overseas, or getting the job you really want, or getting married (or getting divorced), or having kids, or anything that hasn’t happened yet, but that you expect or even hope will happen in the future.

“The second strategy is to look backward and romanticize the past.  “Life was so much better before you!”  We remember when we lived near the ocean, or when we were active and healthy, or when we were in college, or before we had kids, or before we went bankrupt.  In both cases we don’t like our present circumstances, so we idealize or romanticize as an escape.  As a result, we sacrifice our present situation, as though it has nothing to offer us but suffering.

“But our real challenge is to find joy or value in the present circumstance of our lives.  That is the only real life we have.  Even if we are working toward making changes in our lives for the better, we have to find value in the effort we are making, while we’re making it.

“Let’s say I live in Vermont, and I am going to take a train to Chicago to visit my mother.  I’ll be on the train all day.  If I spend the time on the train simply anticipating how wonderful it will be when I get to Chicago, then I have missed a whole day of my life.  So I have to find joy on the train.  Maybe there is some interesting scenery.  Perhaps I can talk to come people and make some new acquaintances.  Or I might write a haiku. (for me, it would be studying some Torah-gg)”

“Once you get to the future (which never really happens) you will find that it is not ideal.  Like most situations, it will offer you both pleasure and discomfort.  The question of whether the life that awaits you exceeds your expectations or disappoints you has more to do with your attitude than your circumstances.

“But regardless of what the past was like, and what kind of future awaits us, the one thing we all have to work with right now is the situation we are in. “Right Now” you are in the best situation that is possible – because there is no other situation that is available.

“So find some joy or beauty, even if just a moment’s worth, in your present circumstance.

“Don’t sacrifice your life, not for a day, not even for an hour.  Don’t substitute an imaginary life for a real one.”

Shabbat shalom

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 141 debates is a better to have boys or girls? The Mishna seems to intimate that girls are more preferable than boys. “The mishna teaches: With regard to one who says: If my wife gives birth to a male the offspring shall receive one hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a male, the offspring receives one hundred dinars. If he says: If my wife gives birth to a female the offspring shall receive two hundred dinars, if she in fact gave birth to a female, the offspring receives two hundred dinars.” (Sefaria.org translation)

On the other hand Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said the boys are preferable over girls. “Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: With regard to anyone who does not leave behind a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him, as it is stated: “If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass [veha’avartem] to his daughter” (Numbers 27:8). The term ha’avara means nothing other than wrath, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath [evra]” (Zephaniah 1:15).” (Sefaria.org translation) Many Rishonim take the sting out of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai statement by limiting it to a person who doesn’t try to have a son at all. If he tries and God blesses him with daughters, God can’t possibly be angry at the man.

The Gemara resolves the above contradiction between the Mishna and Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai by concluding that the father’s preference for boys and girls are different. “The Gemara resolves the contradiction: With regard to the matter of inheritance, for him a son is preferable to a daughter, as a son bears his name and retains his ancestral heritage within his father’s tribe, but with regard to the matter of providing for his offspring’s comfort, for him his daughter is preferable to his son, as a son is more capable of coping for himself and the daughter needs more support.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Shmuel teaches that having a daughter first is a good omen for the boys. “And Shmuel said: Here we are dealing with a mother who is giving birth for the first time, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: If one gives birth to a daughter first, it is a good sign for sons. There are those who say that this is because she raises her brothers, i.e., helps in their upbringing, and there are those who say that this is because the evil eye does not have dominion over the father” (Sefaria.org translation)

There are two possible interpretations of what the evil eye means. It could mean when a family has lots of boys, neighbors look at his good fortune and become jealous of him. Or it could prevent jealousy within the family. If a baby girl is the firstborn, according to the Torah she does not receive the second portion like a firstborn son. Now all the sons will inherit equally and no one will be jealous of his brother for receiving a double portion.

When Judy and I were having children, we didn’t care whether the baby was a boy or a girl as long as the baby was healthy. After my first son was born, we hoped for a girl. Before each brother was born we thought if it’s a girl great and if it’s a boy we have plenty of clothes for him. In the end God blessed us with four wonderful boys. We also now have awesome daughters-in-law.

TB Baba Batra 139-149 Admon and male privilege

 With daf TB Baba Batra 139 we conclude the eighth chapter of our massekhet and begin the ninth chapter. The ninth chapter continues the discussion of inheritance. By rabbinic law we know already that minor daughters had to be taken care of by the estate until they reach the age of majority which is 12 ½ years old. That’s when the obligation ends. The obligation also ends when the girls marry. Hopefully after the sisters reach the age of majority and not yet married, the brothers will still support them; however, they’re not obligated.

The first Mishna of our new chapter deals with accounting of the portfolio. “In the case of one who died and left behind both sons and daughters, when the estate is large the sons inherit the estate and the daughters are provided with sustenance from it according to the stipulations of the deceased’s marriage contract with their mother. With regard to a small estate, which is insufficient to provide for both the sons and the daughters, the daughters are provided with sustenance. And if the sons, who receive in this case neither inheritance nor sustenance, have no other means with which to support themselves, they go and request charity at the doors. Admon says, rhetorically: I lost out just because I am male? Rather, he holds that the sons also receive sustenance. Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon.” (Sefaria.org translation) Here I think we see male privilege at work. Admon and Rabban Gamliel don’t see the irony that just because the daughters are females they lose out.

Rava provides Admon’s underlying reasoning. “Rava said that this is what Admon is saying: Because I am male, and I am fit to inherit in the case of a large estate, should I lose my inheritance entirely in the case of a small estate?” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara defines what is a large estate and what is a small estate. “When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say it was Rabba bar Ḥana who says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Any estate that is large enough to provide sustenance from it for both these and those until the time that the daughters reach their majority is a large estate; less than that, this is a small estate.” (sefaria.org translation)

 Most of the Rishonim hold in a case of a small estate the sons and daughters split the inheritance equally to support themselves. They understand that Admon is disagreeing with the tanna kamma. Rashbam writes every time in the Gemara “Rabban Gamliel said: I see as correct the statement of Admon,” the halakha is like him. According to Rebbeinu Tam, he isn’t disagreeing with the tanna kamma. He is only registering his astonishment about the rabbinic takana of a small estate. Admon still agrees with the sages.

A conditional gift TB Baba Batra 137

On daf TB Baba Batra 137 the Gemara goes on a slight tangent by discussing the laws of an lulav and etrog. According to the Torah the person waving the lulav and etrog must own it and not just borrow it on the first day. “It is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Just as a person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another, as it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm” (Leviticus 23:40), and the Sages derive from the phrase: Shall take for yourselves, that it must be taken from your own and not from that of someone else…” TB Sukkah 27b, Sefaria.org translation)

Ideally each Jew should own his own lulav and etrog; however, we know that is not always possible. Sometimes the cost of the lulav and etrog is prohibitive for each person to own his own and sometimes the ability to import a lulav and etrog for everyone is impossible. We have stories that there was only one lulav and etrog for an entire small European shtetel. Daf TB Baba Batra 137 teaches how we can surmount those challenges. It answers the question can one gift his lulav and etrog on the condition that that person return it to him?

“Rava says: If one person said to another: This etrog is given to you as a gift on the condition that you return it to me, and the recipient took it on Sukkot and attempted to fulfill his obligation with it, if he ultimately returned it, he has fulfilled his obligation; if he did not return it, he has not fulfilled his obligation, as he did not fulfill the condition, thereby retroactively invalidating the gift. The Gemara explains that Rava teaches us that a gift given on the condition that it be returned is considered a valid gift.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There is another occasion where a conditional gift works. Today the groom gives a ring to the bride for the purposes of kiddushin, engagement, underneath the huppah before the marriage ceremony. The groom has to own that ring for the kiddushin to be valid. Sometimes somebody in the family has an heirloom ring  and the groom wishes to use that special ring for the purposes of kiddushin. If the owner of the ring gives it to the groom as a gift so is his for that short time underneath the huppah on the condition he returns it afterwards, the groom may use give it to his bride. If they return that ring to the original owner, then the kiddushin is valid, but if they don’t well they have more trouble than they had before.

How can I gift you my land, but I want to continue to enjoy the produce during my lifetime? TB Baba Batra 136

Land is acquired in three ways, a contract document (שטר), money (כסף), proprietary usage (חזקה). When a person in his lifetime wants to gift property (קרקע) to his son, but retain the right to consume the produce (פירות), the document will contain the phrase “from today and after my death.- מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה” (Sefaria.org translation)

During the Amoraic period, an additional method of acquiring property was instituted. This acquiring was done by a kinyan sudar (קנין סודר), each person tugging on an end of a piece of cloth like a handkerchief. I’m sure you’ve seen this method at weddings when the groom accepts the obligations outlined in the ketubah.

On today’s daf TB Baba Batra 136, Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda agree that the phrase “from today and after my death” isn’t necessary to parse the gift document as explained in the first paragraph “Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Whether the wording is he transferred it to him and we acquired it from him, or whether it is we acquired it from him and he transferred it to him, he need not write: From today and after my death, as the act of transfer (i.e. the kinyan sudar-gg) is mentioned in any event. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei in the mishna disagree whether the phrase: From today and after my death, is necessary only with regard to a case where the deed merely states: This is a record of the proceedings that took place in our presence, without any mention of an act of transfer.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara reports that describes both Abaye’s scribes and Rava’s scribes knew the how to write these types of documents correctly.

 

Our mission in life #Lekhlekha#devartorah#parashathashavua

 Television shows like American Idol and The Voice have become a global phenomenon. Millions wait anxiously to find out who will be the next singer eliminated in the musical talent hunt.

Some called it “a new concept in entertainment,” but it’s hardly a new idea. Some people will remember watching Ted Mack’s Original Amateur Hour. That show was followed by the bizarre talent hunt The Gong Show in the 70s, and then by Star Search in the 80s. It is an ongoing theme of television to search for someone unknown and make him or her famous.

Dreams of fame and fortune, however, are not at the heart of the search that is truly timeless. That search is God’s own pursuit of hearts that are available for His work in the world.

In this week’s Torah portion God selects Abraham.  “God said to Abram, “Go forth from your native land and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you. Abram went forth as God had commanded him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran. (Genesis 12:1, 4)

Next week God reveals to us what He wants Abraham to do in the world. “For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of God by doing what is just (tzedakah- צְדָקָ֖ה) and right (mishpat- מִשְׁפָּ֑ט)” (Genesis 18:19)

Samson Raphael Hirsch explains the difference between tzedakah and mishpat. He defines tzedakah as dutiful benevolence, and justice while mishpat (justice) denotes a benefit which a person has the right to demand from another. God expects Abraham and his descendants not only to pursue justice, but also to do what is right above and beyond the letter of the law.

That’s our mission. Are you available? 

 

Yonatan ben Uzziel’s No Fly Zone TB Baba Batra 134

Today’s daf TB Baba Batra 134 relates the greatness of Yonatan ben Uzziel. He wrote an Aramaic translation (Targum) of the Bible books of the Prophets. Concerning this translation Leonard Greenspoon wrote:

“The primary Targum to the Prophets is Targum Yonatan. It’s date of initial composition is generally accepted to be in the third century, and its final editing is usually set in the seventh century….

“The talmudic text (b. Megillah 3a) also holds that Hillel’s student Yonatan ben Uzziel produced this Targum ‘at the dictation of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,’ the last three prophets in Jewish tradition. Their linkage with the Targum and its human author is intended to provide something of a direct link from the Hebrew Bible to us Aramaic rendering.

“ Targum Yonatan holds as a unified composition based on similar stylistic features throughout. This Targum also exhibits notes were the points of affinity with Targum Onkelos. Both are in the same Aramaic dialect, avoid humanlike language in relation to God, include the periodic updating of places, add explanatory narrative, and demonstrates efforts to simplify what we were apparently taken as difficult passages.” (Jewish Bible translations: Personalities, Passions, Politics, Progress, page 39-40)

How great was Yonatan ben Uzziel? The Gemara will ultimately compare him to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who escaped the Roman siege of Jerusalem and created the Yeshiva at Yavneh. To put into perspective, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai is credited with saving Judaism after the destruction of the Temple by his interpretations and ordinances.

“Apropos Yonatan ben Uzziel, the Gemara cites that the Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon them as it did upon Moses our teacher, thirty of them were sufficiently worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua bin Nun, and twenty were on an intermediate level between the other two. The greatest of all the students was Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the least of them was Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.

“The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible and Mishna; Talmud; halakhot and aggadot; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; and the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to a fortiori inferences; and verbal analogies; and the calculation of the calendric seasons; and numerical values of Hebrew letters [gimatriyot]; and parables of launderers, which are folktales that can be used to explain the Torah, and parables of foxes. In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees, and the conversation of ministering angels, and more generally, a great matter and a small matter.

“The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot (see Ezekiel, chapter 1), the conduct of the transcendent universe, and a small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the discussions of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines, so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom.

“The Gemara adds: And if the least of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he would sit and engage in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Obviously there are different explanations explaining “any bird that would fly over him would be incinerated.” Rashi back in massekhet Sukkah 28a explains that when Yonatan ben Uzziel taught Torah, the angels themselves drew close to him because they want to hear his Torah. The angels being creatures of fire incinerated the birds. Tosefot has a different explanation. Because the Torah was given with fire at Mount Sinai, his Torah explanations incinerated the birds. Finally there are those who explain this phrase as a metaphor. Yonatan ben Uzziel’s explanations were so clear that they removed any questions and doubts like those unfortunate birds.

 

 

Don’t disinherit your children Baba Batra 133

The Mishnah on today’s daf TB Baba Batra 133 presents a disagreement between the tanna kamma and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel whether one should disinherit his children. “With regard to one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara settles the dispute by telling a story. Although it is told as a true story, it has famous folklore elements like a caught fish that has swallowed a precious stone. Check out Shlock Rock’s parody of Shlomo Carlebach singing/story telling style about a magical talking fish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsMPmrB-clo

“Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a vessel [illiyyata] full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai’s crown weaver. After the son’s wife gave birth, he bought her a fish [binita]. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it.

“His wife said to him: Do not bring it to the treasury of the king to sell it, as they will take it from you for an insignificant sum of money. Rather, go bring it to the Temple treasurers. And do not appraise it yourself, as declaration to the Most High is equivalent to transfer to an ordinary person, and if you offer to sell it for an amount less than its worth, you will not be able to change your mind. Rather, let them appraise it.

“He brought it to the Temple treasury, and they appraised it as having the value of thirteen vessels [illiyyata] full of dinars. The treasurers said to him: There are seven illiyyata of dinars at our disposal to pay you for the pearl, but there are not an additional six. He said to the treasurers: Give me the seven in exchange for the pearl, and as for the additional six that you owe me, they are hereby consecrated to Heaven. 

“The treasurers arose and wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son bestowed six. And there are those who say that they wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son removed seven, which he received for the pearl.

“The Gemara infers: From the fact that they said approvingly that Yosef ben Yo’ezer’s son bestowed six, by inference, he acted well when he left him out of his inheritance. The Gemara responds: On the contrary; from the fact that according to the second account, they said disparagingly that he removed seven, by inference, Yosef ben Yo’ezer did not act well when he left him out of his inheritance, as he caused money to be removed from the Temple treasury. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this story with regard to the dilemma as to whether the Rabbis agree with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the two accounts contradict each other on this matter.

“The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, do not be in a house where inheritance is transferred away from its rightful heir, even if it is transferred from a wicked son to a good son, and all the more so if it is transferred from a son to a daughter. Evidently, the Rabbis hold that inheritance should not be transferred in any case.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I don’t have to tell anybody that money and especially money via an inheritance can create disharmony in a family. Families have been torn asunder over who got what or who didn’t get any. We would do well to follow Shmuel’s advice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who did away with the condition of banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין? TB Baba Batra 131

 In your will are you obligated to provide the inheritance equally amongst all the inheritors or may you favor one or more over the rest? In the Mishna on daf TB Baba Batra 130a Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka holds that you may divide your estate anyway one with two provisos. “Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that if he said this about one fit to inherit from him, his statement stands.” (Sefaria.org translation) Only one who is legally able to inherit can be designated to inherit as much of the estate as the bequeathing person desires is the first proviso. In other words, the person cannot disinherit his entire family and give his estate to an outsider as an inheritance. The second proviso the Gemara teaches concerns the firstborn. The double portion the first born receives is a Torah law and cannot be abrogated. After the firstborn receives his double portion, the man may bequeath his estate as he wishes as long as he follows the first proviso.

The case under discussion is a critically ill person, a shekhiv mera’-שְׁכִיב מֵרָע. In modern terms, the person is in hospice. He may not die immediately, but his days are numbered. Because of his tenuous situation, the rabbis were lenient and only required verbal statements instead of the usual document with signed witnesses.

Daf TB Baba Batra 131 wants to know may we extend Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka’s position to a healthy person. The condition of (banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין) even when it is not explicitly written in the ketubah proves that even a healthy person can bequeath his estate to whomever child he wishes. “Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: Come and hear a resolution of your dilemma from a baraita, as Rabbi Natan said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: You taught in your Mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 52b): If the husband did not write for her in her marriage contract: Any male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion of the inheritance that they receive together with their brothers, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court and consequently takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka that one may add to the share of some of his sons at the expense of the others.” (Sefaria.org translation)

If you remember from our study of massekhet Ketubot, the rabbis instituted the condition of male children (banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין) to encourage the father of the bride to endow his daughter a large dowry. The rabbis were afraid that fathers of the bride wouldn’t provide a worthy dowry for fear that his daughter would predecease her husband, the husband would remarry or already have a second or third wife with children. The husband would die and his children from the other marriages would inherit his the entire estate. This condition would ensure the original father would be happy that the money he gave to his daughter would go to his grandchildren and nobody else.

This condition of banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין is nowhere to be found in our modern ketubot or enforced. By the time of the Goanim this condition was annulled for two reasons. First of all, fathers were so generous to the daughters that there was little or no inheritance left for the sons. Secondly, the enforcement of the excommunication when not observing this condition was no longer possible. Nevertheless, Rav Hai Gaon[1] believed that the condition banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין was never annulled. There were some places that had the custom of collecting money for the banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין and there are some places they can collect money for the banin dikhrin-בְּנִין דִּיכְרִין.

Today not only is this condition not found it in any ketubah and it is never enforced.

---

[1] Hai ben Sherira (Hebrew: האיי בר שרירא) better known as Hai Gaon (Hebrew: האיי גאון), was a medieval Jewish theologian, rabbi and scholar who served as Gaon of the Talmudic academy of Pumbedita during the early 11th century. He was born in 939 and died on March 28, 1038.^[1][2][3] He received his Talmudic education from his father, Sherira ben Hanina, and in early life acted as his assistant in teaching.^[4] In his forty-fourth year he became associated with his father as "av bet din," and with him delivered many joint decisions. According to Sefer HaKabbalah of Rabbi Abraham ben David (Ravad), he was the last of the Geonim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hai_ben_Sherira)