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.