Discerning the father’s real intentions is key TB Ketubot 70

Ilfa and his younger colleague Rabbi Yoḥanan were both students of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Both these scholars were extremely poor and decided they needed to leave the yeshiva and find work to support themselves. Ilfa left, but Rabbi Yoḥanan changed his mind and returned to study in the yeshiva. Ultimately, Rabbi Yoḥanan was chosen to be the next Rosh Yeshiva. Ilfa learned had he remained in the yeshiva, he would have been chosen to be the Rosh Yeshiva. For a fuller account of this background, follow this link to TB Ketubot 21a https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit.21a.2?lang=bi.

Starting on yesterday’s daf and concluding on today’s daf TB Ketubot 70, Ilfa’s story continues.

“Once, it was decided to appoint Rabbi Yoḥanan to be head of the yeshiva over another candidate, the Sage Ilfa, because the latter was not in the vicinity. Suspecting that some would interpret this appointment as a sign that he was less qualified than Rabbi Yoḥanan, Ilfa suspended himself from the mast [iskarya] of a ship [makhuta]. He said: If there is someone who comes, who tells me a matter taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Oshaya, and I do not resolve it and demonstrate that the same teaching can be derived from a mishna, I will fall from the mast and drown.

“A certain older man came and taught before him (Tosefta 6:10): With regard to one who says upon his deathbed: Give a shekel to my sons for each week, the court assesses the sons’ needs. And if it is appropriate that the court gives them a sela, which is worth two shekels, the court gives them a sela. Had the father if but if he said: Give them only a shekel, the court gives them only a shekel. Because their father spoke explicitly, there is no room to question his intentions. If they need more, they should take charitable aid. And if he said: If they die without inheritors, others should inherit in their stead, then whether he said: Give a shekel or whether he said: Don’t give more than a shekel, the court gives them only a shekel, since it is clear that he wants the inheritance to be doled out in such a way that it will remain intact for whoever will receive it. The older man asked Ilfa where this halakha is indicated in the Mishna.

“Ilfa said to him: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says it is a mitzva to fulfill the instructions of the dead, as the mishna states that the third party must fulfill the instructions of the deceased, although the daughter is likely to do as she pleases after the third party fulfills his part. In this manner, Ilfa successfully answered the man’s challenge.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Immediately the Gemara raises a question how can a trustee deviate from the wishes of the father when it is a mitzvah to fulfill the statements of the dead (even though the father was alive when he set up this trusteeship). “Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: The halakha is that whether he says: Give a shekel or whether he says: Do not give more than a shekel, the court gives the sons enough for all of their needs. The Gemara asks: But how could we disregard the father’s words and give more, when the father said to give only a shekel? We maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is a mitzva to fulfill the statements of the dead. How, then, may the father’s instructions be ignored? The Gemara answers: This principle applies only in other matters, in which there is a mitzva to fulfill his wishes, but in this instance it is certainly preferable to him that his children be appropriately provided for. And the reason that he said this statement limiting the allowance is that he came to encourage them to adopt thrifty spending habits.” (Sefaria.org translation)

An allowance of a shekel was insufficient to meet the child’s minimum needs. It is my opinion that the court applied the principle “Great is human dignity-גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת) when it ordered that the child receive enough money for all his needs. To have the child beg or rely on charity when the estate has the means to maintain him, denies him his dignity. In this case the court tried to discern the father’s intentions in deciding what to do. All loving fathers want their children to be appropriately provided for; consequently, the court based its decision to override the deceased father’s statement by saying that his purpose was only to help his child’s character development as S. W. Straus, a 20^th century banker and Jewish philanthropist once said “Thrift is not an affair of the pocket, but an affair of character.” (https://inspiration.rightattitudes.com/authors/s-w-straus/)