Bava Batra 153 - November 25, 24 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rav and Shmuel disagreed regarding a case where one promised a gift using the phrase "in life and in death." Rav held that this language indicated a deathbed gift, with "in life" being mentioned merely as an expression of hope. Shmuel, however, interpreted it as a gift from a healthy person. In Nehardea, they followed Rav's ruling. Later, Rava introduced a distinction: he argued that Rav would agree that using the phrase "from life" (rather than "in life") would be treated as a gift from a healthy person. Ameimar, however, rejected Rava's interpretation of Rav's position. When a case of this...
info_outline
Bava Batra 152 - November 24, 23 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
This week's learning is sponsored in honor of Elana Storch on her birthday. With love from her kids - Ruth, Ira, Elsa, Julianna, Reuben, Elia, Adele, Emanuel and Arianne. "We are inspired by the example you continue to set for us in your commitment to your learning." Rav and Shmuel disagree on a few different situations regarding a gift given on one's deathbed. If there was a document in which it states that a gift was given on one's deathbed with an act of acquisition - Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether the kinyan was added to override the laws of one on one's deathbed and only...
info_outline
Bava Batra 151 - Shabbat November 23, 22 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
What else does the word "possessions" include? Some stories are brought of women on their deathbeds who promised their property to one person and then changed their minds and promised it to someone else. The rabbis debated what the ruling should be - if one's word on one's deathbed and as if they were already acquired, is one not able to change one's mind? A case is brought of a woman who gave her possessions to her son before her second marriage to prevent them from going to her husband. When she later got divorced, was she able to retrieve her possessions from her son? Another case was...
info_outline
Bava Batra 150 - November 22, 21 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Abaye questions Rav Yosef's difficulty with Rav Yehuda and Rav Yirmia's interpretation of the Mishna by showing that sometimes the Mishna uses the word "karka (land)" to include movable items (metaltelin) and "kol shehu (any amount)" can refer to a particular size (larger than just any amount). One Mishna is in Peah 3:8 regarding the language used to free a slave. The other is in Chulin 11:2 regarding the first shearings where "kol shehu" means a particular amount. However, in conclusion, they explain these words in the above-mentioned Mishnayot as exceptions to the rule, and Abaye's...
info_outline
Bava Batra 149 - November 21, 20 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
What language must be used for a gift stated on one's deathbed to be valid? If one sells all of one's property on one's deathbed, is it a valid sale if one recovers from one's illness? If one admits on one's deathbed that one owes money, do we believe the admission or is it possible the person is lying and just wants to show they don’t have a lot of money? A story is brought with Issur the convert and how he was able to use this (an admission) as a solution to passing on his money that was in Rava’s possession (as Rava was watching it for him) to his son, who was conceived before his...
info_outline
Bava Batra 148 - November 20, 19 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rav Nachman ruled that one cannot transfer intangible items, like the right to live in a house or the right to future fruits from a tree even on one's deathbed. By doing this, he equates a gift on one's deathbed to a regular gift. However, he ruled elsewhere that the rights to collect a loan with an oral agreement can be transferred to another on one's deathbed, even though this right can't be transferred from one who is not on one's deathbed. The Gemara brings two resolutions. If one gave a tree to one person and the fruits to another, can we assume that when the giver gave the tree to one,...
info_outline
Bava Batra 147 - November 19, 18 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Today's daf is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of Manny Gross on his 2nd yahrzeit. "May his memory forever be a blessing." Today's daf is sponsored by Marc and Debbie Pershan in loving memory of Marc's mother, Perel Bayla bat Simcha, on the occasion of the shloshim. From where do we learn that a declaration of a person on their deathbed is effective as if an act of acquiring was performed? The sages brought sources for the law from two verses in the Torah and two from the Prophets. Rava says in the name of Rav Nachman that this law is not derived from the Torah, but the...
info_outline
Bava Batra 146 - November 18, 17 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Today's daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her Zayde, Israel (Ignacio) Marmurek on his 41st yahrzeit. Today's daf is sponsored by Rhona Fink in honor of our fellow Daf learner Elana Weinberg and her husband Rabbi Brahm Weinberg on the occasion of the Bar Mitzvah of their son Joseph Asher in Silver Spring, Maryland, Parshat Vayera, this past Shabbat. "Joseph is already following in the footsteps of his parents with his demonstration of confidence, knowledge, and humility." After a betrothal, a groom would bring gifts to the bride called sivlonot. If the marriage was...
info_outline
Bava Batra 145 - November 17, 16 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
A contradiction was brought from a braita against the Mishna regarding returning reciprocal gifts for a wedding (shushbinim). There were three resolutions. The third established the case of the Mishna of one when the groom died and left a yabam, a brother to perform levirate marriage. When the gifts are given to the yabam, he must share them with his brothers. To raise a difficulty against this answer they compare the case to one where the groom dies after betrothal and before the marriage. Just as in that case, the money from the betrothal does not have to be returned as the woman can claim...
info_outline
Bava Batra 144 - Shabbat November 16, 15 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
How are estate profits divided if only some or one of the heirs invested either time or money in improving it? What are the factors that affect the law? When are some exceptions to the rules? It was customary that a father who married off his oldest son in a house adjacent to his own house, would give that house to the son as a gift. Since this was the generally accepted practice, even if the father didn't specify it as a gift to the son, the law presumes that the house was given to the son. This is one of three laws that are declared "A halakha without a clear explanation." If brothers are...
info_outlineRav Nachman ruled that one cannot transfer intangible items, like the right to live in a house or the right to future fruits from a tree even on one's deathbed. By doing this, he equates a gift on one's deathbed to a regular gift. However, he ruled elsewhere that the rights to collect a loan with an oral agreement can be transferred to another on one's deathbed, even though this right can't be transferred from one who is not on one's deathbed. The Gemara brings two resolutions.
If one gave a tree to one person and the fruits to another, can we assume that when the giver gave the tree to one, he retained the space on the tree where the fruits grow and passed those on to the other, making it an effective gift as he is giving a part of the tree that is in existence. Or did the giver not retain the space where the fruits go and gave the second person the right to collect fruits that will grow that are not yet in existence, which is not a valid gift? If the answer is that it is not effective, would it be the same work in a case where one gives the tree to someone but retains the fruits for oneself? A different version of this question is brought by Rabbi Abba. In his version, this differentiation between selling to two people and selling to one person and retaining part for oneself was asked on a statement that Reish Lakish made about one who sold a house without the upper level. According to both versions, the answer is that we can definitively say in the case that one sold/gave part to someone else, the part they retained would remain in their possession as surely people retain generously when it affects themselves.
If one begins dividing up one's possessions and stops in the middle and then continues and gives away the rest, are the first gifts viewed as regular gifts (as one was only giving part of their possessions at that point) or are they viewed as gifts on one's deathbed since in the end, all of the possessions were given away?
Rav Acha rules that even if one gave away one's possessions on one's deathbed and then healed, even if those were all of that person's known possessions, one should be concerned that maybe the person has other possessions in another country and therefore the gift is effective. This seems to contradict the Mishna. How can this be explained?
If one gives away money on one's deathbed and then changes one's mind about part of the funds, does that cancel the entire first gift or only part? What are the ramifications of this? The Gemara brings a braita to prove that the first gift is completely canceled. At first, the Gemara rejects the proof but then reestablishes it and concludes that the first gift is completely canceled.
If one consecrates all of one's property on one's deathbed, or declares it all ownerless, or gives it all to charity, and then gets better, is this canceled?