Bava Batra 143bבבא בתרא קמ״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Batra 143b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
143bקמ״ג ב
1 א

ואם הביא חמשים בכלי אחד וחמשים בכלי אחד יצא אם הביא אין לכתחלה לא ואי סלקא דעתך כל כי האי גוונא פלגא ופלגא הוא אפילו לכתחלה נמי

And if he brought fifty-tenths in one vessel and fifty in one vessel, he fulfilled his obligation. One can infer from the baraita that after the fact, if he had brought fifty-tenths in each vessel, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but he may not do so ab initio. And if it should enter your mind to say that every case like this is divided half and half, it should be permitted to divide the meal-offering into equal halves even ab initio.

2 ב

הכי השתא התם אנן סהדי דהאי גברא מעיקרא לקרבן גדול קא מכוין והאי דקאמר בשני כלים דידע דלא אפשר לאתויי בכלי אחד כמה דאפשר לאיתויי מייתינן

The Gemara dismisses Rabbi Zeira’s objection: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the meal-offering, it is clear to us that this person initially intended to bring a large offering, and the reason that he said he will bring the offering in two vessels was that he knew that it is not possible to bring the entire offering in a single vessel. Therefore, we bring, in a single vessel, as much as it is possible to bring, which is sixty-tenths. In any other case it is possible that the division should be into two equal portions.

3 ג

והלכתא כוותיה דרב יוסף בשדה ענין ומחצה

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef in three matters where he disagreed with Rabba: In the matter of dividing a field between brothers (see 12b); in the matter of whether certain actions are limited by the court session or by the topic of discussion in the court (see 114a); and in the matter of half, i.e., this matter, whether an unspecified division into two parts is divided into two equal halves.

4 ד

ההוא דשדר פיסקי דשיראי לביתיה אמר רבי אמי הראויין לבנים לבנים ראויין לבנות לבנות ולא אמרן אלא דלית ליה כלתא אבל אית ליה כלתא לכלתיה שדר ואי בנתיה לא נסיבן לא שבק בנתיה ומשדר לכלתיה

§ The Gemara cites additional incidents concerning a gift whose method of division was not specified: There was a certain man who sent swaths of silk to his home as a gift. Rabbi Ami says that in such a case, those swaths that are suitable for the sons’ garments are given to the sons, and those that are suitable for the daughters’ garments are given to the daughters. The Gemara comments: We said this only when he does not have daughters-in-law, but if he has daughters-in-law, it is presumed that he sent it for his daughters-in-law. And if his daughters are not married, it is presumed that he does not forsake his daughters and send to his daughters-in-law, so the silk is given to his daughters.

5 ה

ההוא דאמר להו נכסיי לבניי הוה ליה ברא וברתא מי קרו אינשי לברא בניי (ולסלוקי לברתא מעישור קאתי) או דלמא לא קרו אינשי לברא בניי ולמושכה לברתא במתנה קאתי

There was a certain man who said to those surrounding him: I leave my property to my sons [levanai], and he had only a son and a daughter. The question was raised: Do people call a single son in the plural: My sons, and in his will he came to remove his daughter even from the tenth of his property that would rightfully be her dowry? Or perhaps people do not call a single son: My sons, and he came to include his daughter in the gift?

6 ו

אמר אביי ת"ש (בראשית מו, כג) ובני דן חושים א"ל רבא דלמא כדתנא דבי חזקיה שהיו מרובין כחושים של קנה אלא אמר רבא (במדבר כו, ח) ובני פלוא אליאב רב יוסף אמר (דברי הימים א ב, ח) ובני איתן עזריה

Abaye said: Come and hear a proof that one does refer to a single son using the plural term sons, as it is written: “And the sons of Dan: Hushim” (Genesis 46:23). Rava said to Abaye: Perhaps this verse should be understood as the school of Ḥizkiyya taught, that Hushim is not the name of Dan’s son but that they, Dan’s sons, were as numerous as the groups [ḥushim] of reeds. Rather, Rava said: One can prove this usage of the term sons in the verse: “And the sons of Pallu: Eliab” (Numbers 26:8). Rav Yosef said: This can be proven from another verse: “And the sons of Ethan: Azariah” (I Chronicles 2:8).

7 ז

ההוא דאמר להו נכסאי לבנאי הוה ליה ברא ובר ברא קרו אינשי לבר ברא ברא או לא רב חביבא אמר קרו אינשי לבר ברא ברא מר בר רב אשי אמר לא קרו אינשי לבר ברא ברא תניא כוותיה דמר בר רב אשי המודר הנאה מבנים מותר בבני בנים:

There was a certain man who said to those surrounding him: I leave my property to my sons, and he had a son and a grandson, i.e., his son’s son. The question was raised: Do people call a grandson a son, or do they not? Rav Ḥaviva said: People call a grandson a son. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: People do not call a grandson a son. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi: With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from a certain person’s sons, it is permitted for him to derive benefit from the sons of that person’s sons, as they are not included in the term sons.

8 ח

מתני׳ הניח בנים גדולים וקטנים השביחו גדולים את הנכסים השביחו לאמצע אם אמרו ראו מה שהניח אבא הרי אנו עושין ואוכלים השביחו לעצמן וכן האשה שהשביחה את הנכסים השביחה לאמצע אם אמרה ראו מה שהניח לי בעלי הרי אני עושה ואוכלת השביחה לעצמה:

MISHNA: In the case of one who died and left behind adult and minor sons, if the adult sons enhanced the property, they enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is distributed among all the heirs. If the adult sons said from the outset: See that which our father left behind; we are going to engage in business with our share of the property and profit from it, then they enhanced the property for themselves. And similarly, with regard to a wife who enhanced the property of her deceased husband, she enhanced it so that the profit goes to the middle, i.e., it is divided between her and the heirs. If she said: See that which my husband left me; I am going to engage in business with my share and profit from it, then she enhanced the property for herself.

9 ט

גמ׳ אמר רב חביבא בריה דרב יוסף בריה דרבא משמיה דרבא לא שנו אלא ששבחו נכסים מחמת נכסים אבל שבחו נכסים מחמת עצמן השביחו לעצמן

GEMARA: Rav Ḥaviva, son of Rav Yosef, son of Rava, says in the name of Rava: They taught this halakha only with regard to where the property was enhanced on account of the property, i.e., the heirs invested money from the common inheritance in order to enhance the property, and their input was only in the management of its investment. But if the property was enhanced on their account, i.e., on account of the efforts or expenditure of the adult sons, the halakha is that they enhanced it for themselves.

10 י

איני והא אמר ר' חנינא אפילו לא הניח להם אביהם אלא

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say: Even if their father left them nothing but