Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים

There are a number of rabbis who debated whether Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the mishna were debating whether or not the person who gave the gift needed to prove he was sick at the time or if the receiver needed to prove that the person was healthy at the time or did they all agree that the assumption is that if he is healthy now, then he was healthy then but what remains to be proven according to the rabbis in the mishna is that the document is valid.  According to the latter opinion, if one comes and says that a document is valid but the circumstances were such that it would render the document irrelevant, do we believe them or not?  Do we say the document is valid since the owner admitted it was valid and we do not accept his admission that it was invalid (i.e. he was on his deathbed and is now better) or since we accept his word that the document is valid, we accept it to say it is invalid?

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Various stories are brought regarding women on their deathbed who gave property to one son and then changed their minds.  The rabbis rule debated what the ruling should be – can one change one’s mind or once one gives away all their possessions and subsequently dies, the first statement they made is valid?  A case is brought by a woman who keeps getting sick and giving an orchard of hers to a brother each time.  One time, he tricked her into doing it in a way that would work – he had her leave over a bit and did a kinyan.  However Rav Nachman ruled that since she said she was giving it to him because she thought she would die, once she got better, the kinyan was ineffective.  At this point the gemara clarifies the case in the mishna and explains that while there are those who understand the mishna in its simple reading, Rav Nachman and others hold that the mishna was referring only to cases where a kinyan was effected,  meaning that if one gave away not all of his possessions and then died or got better, if the gift was given without a kinyan, the person would not acquire the possessions.  Additionally, if one did do a kinyan and didn’t give away all of one’s possessions but stated that it was because the person thought they were dying, then if they got better, the gift would be returned to him/her.  Rav and Shmuel debate the case of one on one’s deathbed who gives away all of one’s possessions and adds a kinyan.  Did one intend for a shtar (document) to be given and since they died before it was given, it can no longer be given and the whole thing is invalid – or are we not concerned about that possibility?  Their opinions here seem to contradict their opinions elsewhere and then gemara responds that the situations are different in each of the cases and therefore they don’t contradict each other.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Study Guide Bava Batra 149

What language must be used in order for a gift stated on one’s deathbed will be a valid gift?  If one sells all of one’s property on one’s deathbed, is it a valid sale if they recover from their illness?  If one admits on one’s deathbed that one owes money, do we believe the admission or is it possible they are just trying to show people that the inheritors don’t have a lot of money?  A story os brought of Issur the convert and how he was able to use this as a solution to passing on his possessions to his son (who was conceived before his conversion and therefore did not fall into the category of an heir).  The mishna says if one divided up one’s possessions on one’s deathbed but left over land of any amount, and then recovers, the gift is valid.  Rav Yehuda says that “any amount” actually means an amount worthy of sustaining him/her.  Rav Yirmiya says that even if one left over movable items worthy of sustaining.  Rav Zeira supports their opinions and Rav Yosef questions them based on the wording in the mishna (“land” and “any amount”).  Abaye supports Rabii Zeira from a mishna in Peah where land actually includes movable items.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

Study Guide Bava Batra 147

What kind of assumptions can we make about a declaration on one’s deathbed?  If he/she gives away all of his/her property and then gets better, we can assume that he/she didn’t mean to give away all their possessions.  But if they left over something for themselves, we can then assume the gifts are valid.  This is based on “umdana” – assessing what they thought even though they didn’t say so explicitly.  The gemara tries to match the opinion in our mishna to tannaim who said the same thing regarding other cases in other places in order to determine who the author of the mishna is.  Various sources are brought to derive where we learn that a gift of a one on our deathbed is valid.  Rav Nachman says it has validity on a rabbinic level in order not to upset the person on their deathbed.  The gemara questions that from another case where it seems Rav Nachman holds that is valid on a Torah level.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS

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?  What about doctor bills for one of the heirs – are they paid for from the sick person’s share or from everyone’s?  Reciprocal marriage gifts (which were common in those days and could be demanded in a court) – how are they divided?  On what do those laws depend?  Three cases are brought in which either no kinyan was done but an exception was made and it is considered as if a kinyan was done or where a document was written and yet we don’t do what it says int he document.   These are called “halachot without a reason.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS