Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathra

Folio 146a

R. Joshua b. Levi further stated: 'All the days of the poor are evil? Surely there are Sabbaths and Festivals!¹  — [The explanation, however, is] according to Samuel. For Samuel said: A change of diet is the beginning of sickness'²  It is written in the Book of Ben Sira: All the days of the poor are evil; Ben Sira says: The nights also. Lower than [all] roofs is his roof, [and] the rain of other roofs [pours down] upon his roof; on the height of mountains is his vineyard. [and] the earth of his vineyard [is washed down] into the vineyards [of others].³

MISHNAH. IF A PERSON HAD SENT WEDDING PRESENTS TO THE HOUSE OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW,⁴  EVEN IF HE SENT A HUNDRED MANEH AND ATE THERE A BRIDEGROOM'S MEAL, [ EVEN IF IT WERE ONLY OF THE VALUE] OF ONE DENAR, THEY⁵  [CANNOT [ANY MORE] BE RECLAIMED.⁶  [IF. HOWEVER]. HE DID NOT EAT THERE A BRIDEGROOM'S MEAL THEY⁵  MAY BE RECLAIMED. [IF] HE SENT MANY PRESENTS WHICH WERE TO RETURN WITH HER TO THE HOUSE OF HER HUSBAND.⁷  THESE MAY BE RECLAIMED.⁸  [IF. HOWEVER, HE SENT A] FEW PRESENTS WHICH SHE WAS TO USE AT THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER, [THESE MAY] NOT BE RECLAIMED.

GEMARA. Raba said: Only [when the meal⁹  was worth] a denar,¹⁰  but not [when it was worth] less than a denar. [Is not this] obvious? We have, [surely], learnt, ONE DENAR! — It might have been assumed that the same law [applies] even [to the case where it was worth] less than a denar, and that [the reason] why a denar was mentioned¹¹  [was because that] was the usual cost,¹²  hence [it was necessary to] teach us [that we do not say so].

We learnt, HE ATE; what [is the law if] he drank? We learnt, HE; what [is the law in the case of] his representative?¹³  We learnt, THERE; what [if] it¹⁴  was sent to him?¹⁵ — Come and hear what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: It once happened with a' certain man who had sent to the house of his father-in-law a hundred wagons of jars of wine and jars of oil, and vessels of silver and of gold and silk garments while he [himself]. in his joy. came riding. and stopped at the door of the house of his father-in-law. They brought out a cup of something warm and he drank and died. This practical question¹⁶  was brought up by R. Aha. the 'Governor of the Castle',¹⁷  before the Sages at Usha, and they decided, 'Gifts which were intended¹⁸  to be used up¹⁹  cannot be reclaimed; and such as are not intended to be used up¹⁹  may be reclaimed. From this it may be inferred [that] even if he [only] drank; from this it may [also] be inferred [that] even [if the meal was worth less than a denar.²⁰  R. Ashi asked: 'Who can tell us that they did not crush a pearl²¹  for him which was worth a thousand zuz and gave him to drink! [May] it be inferred, [however that] even if [it] was sent to him?²²  — [No;] it is possible [that] anywhere [near] the door of the house of one's father-in-law is [the same] as the house [itself].

The question was raised: Has he²³  to pay²⁴  in proportion?²⁵  [Further:] Is he entitled to²⁶  the appreciation of the gifts?²⁷  [Do we say that] since if they²⁸  are available they are returned to him, the appreciation took place in his possession; or, perhaps. since if they were lost or stolen she²⁹  has to make compensation. the appreciation took place in her possession? — This is undecided.

Raba inquired: What [is the law in the case of] gifts intended to be used up that were not used up?³⁰ — Come and hear: 'And this practical question was brought up by R. Aha, the governor of the castle, before the Sages at Usha and they decided [that] gifts intended to be used up [can] not be reclaimed, and such as are not intended to be used up may be reclaimed' — Does³¹  not [this refer] even [to the case] where they were not used up! — No; where they were used up. Come and hear: [IF, HOWEVER, HE SENT A] FEW PRESENTS WHICH SHE WAS TO USE AT THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER, [THESE MAY] NOT BE RECLAIMED!³²  — Raba interpreted [the Mishnah as referring to] a veil or a hair-net.³³

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It once happened that a certain person sent to the house of his father-in-law new wine and new oil and garments of new linen³⁴  at [the] Pentecost season. What does [this]³⁵  teach us? — If you wish I would say: The praise of the land of Israel.³⁶  And if you prefer [it] I would say: That if he advances [such] a plea it is accepted.³⁷

Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: It once happened that a certain person was told [that] his wife was defective in the sense of smell³⁸  He followed her into a ruin to test her³⁹  He said unto her, 'I sense the smell of radish⁴⁰  in Galilee.'⁴¹

1. During which days, at least, the poor were provided with wholesome and substantial meals.
2. For a poor man, who is in the habit of consuming all the week nothing but dry bread, the meat and the other expensive foodstuffs, with which he is supplied on Sabbaths and Festivals, cause indigestion.
3. [Not in our texts].
4. On the morning after the betrothal it was customary for the bridegroom to send to the house of his father-in-law, in honour of the bride, jewels and various kinds of wine or oil. [These gifts were known as Sablonoth, [H], dona sponsalitia, derived according to Kohut from Gr, [G] and according to Maimonides from [H] 'to carry', [H] 'gift' from [H].]
5. The presents.
6. Even in the case where he or she died, or where he desired to divorce her. It is assumed that the bridegroom, thanks to his joy and satisfaction with the company and the meal, however small the latter might have been. has definitely determined to present the gifts wholeheartedly and permanently.
7. As the wife's property.
8. Cf. p. 628, n. 8.
9. Which the bridegroom had in the house of his father-in-law.
10. Only then may the gifts be reclaimed.
11. Lit., 'taught'.
12. Lit., 'thing'.
13. Who had a meal of the value of a denar at the house of his father-in-law.
14. The meal.
15. To his own house.
16. Halachah.
17. [Cf Neh. VII, 2. Here probably an hereditary title].
18. Lit., 'made',
19. Before the wedding.
20. The drink he had could not have been worth a denar.
21. For medicinal purposes (Rashb.). A pearl was regarded as a life-giving substance. Cf. M. A. Canney. JMEOS. XV, 43ff.
22. Since the drink was brought to the door.
23. A bridegroom who consumed a meal of less value than a denar.
24. In a case where the gifts are reclaimed,
25. According to Raba who stated that if the value of the meal was less than a denar the gifts may he reclaimed, has the bridegroom to pay at least for what he has consumed? (Cf. Tosaf. a.l., s.v., [H]).
26. Lit., 'what',
27. That took place during the time they were at the bride's house.
28. The gifts themselves.
29. The bride.
30. Are they to be returned or not?
31. Lit., 'what'.
32. Since here, unlike the wording of the previous citation, the expression. 'intended to be used up'. does not occur, it is assumed to refer to all cases, even to those where they were not used up.
33. I.e., articles of little value, the return of which one does not expect. Hence, even if they were not used up they need not be returned.
34. Of flax that grew in that year.
35. The mention of Pentecost.
36. That its harvests are earlier than those of other countries.
37. Lit., 'his plea is a plea'. i.e., if he reclaims such gifts. asserting that he had sent them at the Pentecost season, he is believed. Though that season is too early for the harvest in other countries it is not so in Palestine.
38. [H] 'in the habit of sniffing'.
39. A husband who finds his wife to be affected with a hidden defect is entitled, under certain conditions, to divorce her without a kethubah.
40. He had with him a radish. According to others, a date.
41. The incident occurred near that district; and the object of his test was to ascertain whether she could sense the smell of the radish. According to the other interpretation. he expected her to reply that she sensed the smell of a date and not that of a radish,

She said to him, 'Would that one gave me of the dates of Jericho and I would eat with it.'¹  [Thereupon] the ruin fell upon her and she died. The Sages decided:²  Since he only followed her in order to test her,³  he is not [entitled to be] her heir [if] she died [during the test]⁴

FEW PRESENTS WHICH SHE WAS TO USE AT THE HOUSE OF HER FATHER, ETC. Rabin the elder sat before R. Papa and stated [the following]: Whether she died, or he died, [or] he retracted,⁵  the wedding gifts are to be returned, foodstuff[s] and drink[s]⁶  are not to be returned. If [however] she retracted, even a bundle of vegetables [must be returned]. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: And it is valued for them⁷  at the cheap[er] price of meat,⁸  Up to how much is [considered] cheap? — Up to a third.⁹

MISHNAH. IF A DYING MAN GAVE ALL HIS PROPERTY IN WRITING, TO OTHERS, AND LEFT [FOR HIMSELF] SOME [PIECE OF] LAND¹⁰  HIS GIFT¹¹  IS VALID.¹²  [IF, HOWEVER,] HE DID NOT LEAVE [FOR HIMSELF] SOME [PIECE OF] LAND, HIS GIFT IS INVALID¹³

GEMARA. Who is the Tanna [that holds the view] that the assumed motive¹⁴  is a determining factor?¹⁵ — R. Nahman replied: It [is the view of] R. Simeon b. Menasya. For it was taught: In the case of [a person] whose son went to a distant country¹⁶  and having heard that the latter had died. assigned all his property, in writing. to a stranger. though his son subsequently appeared. his gift is. [nevertheless]. legally] valid.¹⁷  R. Simeon b. Menasya said: His gift is not [legally] valid; for had he known that his son was alive, he would not have given it away.¹⁸

R. Shesheth said: It [is the view of] R. Simeon Shezuri.¹⁹  For It was taught: At first it was held [that] when one who was led out in chains,²⁰  said, 'Write a bill of divorce for my wife', It is to be written and delivered [to her];²¹  later, however, It was held²²  [that the same law applies] also [to] one who goes out [to sea] or on a caravan [journey]. R. Simeon Shezuri said: [The same law] also [applies to one] who is dangerously [ill]²³

For what reason, however, does not R. Nahman establish it²⁴  in accordance with [the view of] R. Simeon Shezuri? — There [the case is] different, since he said, 'write'.²⁵  And why does not R. Shesheth establish it²⁴  in accordance with [the view of] R. Simeon b. Menasya? — A well grounded assumption²⁶  is different.²⁷

Who is the author of the following ruling²⁸  which was taught by our Rabbis? 'If a person was lying ill in bed, and was asked, "To whom [shall] your estate [be given]?" and he replied

1. Jericho was famous for its dates which were so sweet that radishes had to he eaten with them to mitigate their excessive sweetness.
2. Where the husband claimed her possessions as her heir.
3. And had he found her to he defective, as he suspected, he would have insisted on divorcing her, he forfeited thereby his rights to be her heir. As soon as one determines to divorce his wife, if she were found to be suffering from some defect, he loses the privileges of an heir unless a reconciliation between them subsequently took place.
4. Since in that case there was no time for their reconciliation before death took place.
5. And divorced her.
6. Sent by the bridegroom to the bride.
7. Where foodstuffs are returned,
8. Or any other foodstuff.
9. Below the current market price.
10. The size is given in the Gemara infra.
11. Even if he recovers from that illness.
12. Since he left for himself some land it is assumed that he did not intend the gift to be conditional upon his death, and it is. therefore, regarded as having been given by a man in good health. It is, consequently. valid even if he recovered from his illness.
13. If he recovered. Since he left nothing for himself it is obvious that at the time he made the gift he did not expect to live any longer. Had he hoped to recover from his illness he would not have given away all his landed property, leaving himself destitute.
14. [H] lit., assumption'. 'estimation'.
15. Lit., 'that we go after assumption', i.e., that the assumed motives and intentions of a testator are to be taken into consideration when deciding the legality of his 'statements In our Mishnah, the assumed motive and intention are obviously the determining factors (V., notes 3, 4); who is its author?
16. Lit., 'country of (i.e., beyond) the sea'.
17. Since it was not specifically made conditional upon his son's death.
18. Lit., 'write them'. Thus it has been shown that R. Simeon b. Menasya takes the assumed motive and intention into consideration,
19. Others, 'of Shezar', [Sedschut between Akko and Kefar 'Anan, in Gallilee. v. Klein, NB. p. 7.]
20. [H] 'collar', the chain, or iron band round a prisoner's neck.
21. Though he only authorized the writing of the divorce, and not its delivery, it is assumed that he had forgotten to mention the latter owing to the perturbed state of his mind
22. Lit., 'they returned to say'.
23. Because it is assumed that his motive and intentions were to have his wife divorced so that she might be exempt from the levirate marriage and from halizah.. Since the same principles of motive and intention underlie the law of our Mishnah, it may be taken to represent the view of R. Simeon Shezuri.
24. Our Mishnah.
25. By this instruction It was made clear that he wished his wife to be legally divorced; and since this cannot be done without the delivery of the bill of divorcement, his instruction must he taken to, extend to, the delivery also. For the case of our Mishnah, however, this argument cannot be applied.
26. In the case of the father who gave all his property to a stranger. since he did not give it away so long as he believed his son to he alive, it is clear that the sole reason why he gave it away subsequently was the reported death of his son.
27. From the case of our Mishnah Since most ailing persons recover, there is not necessarily any reason for the assumption that the gift was due to the testator's belief that he would not recover.
28. Lit., 'who taught that'.