מַתְנִי׳ אַחִין הַשּׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁנָּפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְאוּמָּנוּת נָפַל לָאֶמְצַע חָלָה וְנִתְרַפֵּא נִתְרַפֵּא מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ: MISHNA: With regard to brothers who were also partners, and it occurred that one of them was summoned to public service, which is assessed per family, he was summoned from the middle, i.e., the profits or expenses of his service are divided among them. If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא הַאי אוּמָּנוּת לְאוּמָּנוּת הַמֶּלֶךְ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁמִּינּוּהוּ גַּבַּאי אוֹ פּוּלְמוֹסְטוּס אִם מֵחֲמַת הָאַחִין לָאַחִין אִם מֵחֲמַת עַצְמוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ GEMARA: The Sages taught: This service mentioned in the mishna is referring to forced imperial service, but if one of the brothers engaged in a trade of his own volition, the profits are his alone. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:5): In the case of one of the brothers who was appointed as a tax collector or a military commander [polmustos], a position with the potential for profit, if he was appointed on account of all the brothers, as the procedure was to impress a representative from each family for this purpose, any profit accrues to all the brothers. If he was appointed on account of himself, the profit accrues to himself.
אִם מֵחֲמַת אַחִין לָאַחִין פְּשִׁיטָא לָא צְרִיכָא דְּחָרִיף טְפֵי מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא חוּרְפֵּיהּ גָּרֵים לֵיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that if he was appointed on account of all the brothers, then the profit accrues to all the brothers? The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary to state this halakha in a case where the brother appointed was sharper, i.e., more capable, than the other brothers. Lest you say that his sharpness caused him to be selected for the position, and he should receive all the profits, the baraita teaches us that his talent notwithstanding, since he was selected as a representative of the family, the profit accrues to all the brothers.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֶחָד מִן הָאַחִין שֶׁנָּטַל מָאתַיִם זוּז לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה אוֹ לִלְמוֹד אוּמָּנוּת יְכוֹלִין הָאַחִין לוֹמַר לוֹ אִם אַתָּה אֶצְלֵנוּ יֵשׁ לְךָ מְזוֹנוֹת אִם אֵין אַתָּה אֶצְלֵנוּ אֵין לְךָ מְזוֹנוֹת The Sages taught: With regard to one of the brothers, who took two hundred dinars from the common inheritance to support himself when he went to another place to study Torah or to learn a trade, the brothers can say to him: If you are here with us, you are entitled to sustenance along with us. If you are not here with us, you are not entitled to sustenance.
וְלִיתְּבוּ לֵיהּ כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בִּרְכַּת הַבַּיִת בְּרוּבָּה וְלִיתְּבוּ לֵיהּ לְפִי בִּרְכַּת הַבַּיִת הָכִי נָמֵי: The Gemara asks: But shouldn’t they give him his sustenance wherever he is? The Gemara answers: This ruling supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: The blessing of the house is in its abundance. This means that the extent to which blessing permeates a home is proportionate to the number of people who live there, and when many people live together the expenses per capita decrease. The Gemara asks: But shouldn’t they give him his sustenance according to the blessing of the house, i.e., the expenses he would incur even if he were in the house? The Gemara responds: Indeed, they are required to provide for those expenses that he would incur in any event.
חָלָה וְנִתְרַפֵּא נִתְרַפֵּא מִשֶּׁל עַצְמוֹ שְׁלַח רָבִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אִלְעָא לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָלָה בִּפְשִׁיעָה אֲבָל בְּאוֹנֶס נִתְרַפֵּא מִן הָאֶמְצַע הֵיכִי דָּמֵי בִּפְשִׁיעָה כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא הַכֹּל בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם חוּץ מִצִּנִּים פַּחִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר צִנִּים פַּחִים בְּדֶרֶךְ עִקֵּשׁ שׁוֹמֵר נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְחַק מֵהֶם: § The mishna teaches: If one of the brothers became sick and sought treatment, the cost of the treatment is paid from his own resources. Ravin sent a ruling in the name of Rabbi Ela: They taught this only in a case where he became ill through negligence. But if he became ill through circumstances beyond his control, the cost of the treatment is paid from the middle, i.e., from the common inheritance. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is considered negligence? This is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: All occurrences that befall man are in the hand of Heaven except for colds and obstacles [paḥim], from which one is able to protect himself, as it is stated: “Colds and snares are on the path of the crooked; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5).
מַתְנִי׳ הָאַחִין שֶׁעָשׂוּ מִקְצָתָן שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב חָזְרָה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת חָזְרָה לָאֶמְצַע שֶׁהַשּׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת נִגְבֵּית בְּבֵית דִּין אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ לַחֲבֵירוֹ כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן אֵין נִגְבִּין בְּבֵית דִּין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים: MISHNA: It was common practice for friends of a groom to give him gifts in order to help cover the expenses of the wedding feast. These gifts are known as gifts of groomsmen, and would be reciprocated in turn. While the groom and the groomsman were at times the recipient and the giver of the gifts, respectively, the gifts were at times provided by the father of the groomsman and received by the father of the groom. In the case of brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen in their father’s lifetime, which were provided by their father, when the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated after the father’s death, when one of the brothers gets married, they are reciprocated to the middle, i.e., the gift is divided among the brothers. This is because gifts of groomsmen are a legal debt owed to the father, collectible in court. But with regard to one who sends his friend jugs of wine or jugs of oil, a reciprocal gift is not collectible in court, because they are considered acts of kindness.
גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהִי שָׁלַח לוֹ אָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת חוֹזֶרֶת לוֹ נִשְׁתַּלְּחָה לְאָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת חוֹזֶרֶת מִן הָאֶמְצַע אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כִּי תְּנַן נָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין נִשְׁתַּלְּחָה לְאָבִיו תְּנַן GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction between the mishna’s ruling that the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated to the middle, and the first clause of a baraita: If a father sent his son with gifts of groomsmen, when they are reciprocated when that son gets married, they are reciprocated to that son. If his father was sent gifts of groomsmen for the wedding of one of his sons, when they are reciprocated from the father’s estate, they are reciprocated from the middle, i.e., the cost of the gift is divided among the brothers. Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: When we learned the mishna as well, we learned it as teaching the halakha with regard to gifts of groomsmen that were sent to the father for the wedding of one of his sons, not with regard to gifts of groomsmen sent by the father.
וְהָא אַחִין שֶׁעָשׂוּ מִקְצָתָן שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת קָתָנֵי תְּנִי לְמִקְצָתָן וְהָא חָזְרָה שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת קָתָנֵי הָכִי קָאָמַר חָזְרָה לִגְבּוֹת נִגְבֵּית מֵאֶמְצַע The Gemara objects: But the mishna teaches the halakha with regard to brothers, some of whom brought gifts of groomsmen. The Gemara responds: Emend the text of the mishna and teach it as saying: With regard to brothers, to some of whom gifts of groomsmen were brought. The Gemara objects: But the mishna explicitly teaches the halakha if the gifts of groomsmen are reciprocated. The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: When it is collected from the brothers in return, it is collected from the middle.
רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר לָא קַשְׁיָא כָּאן בִּסְתָם כָּאן בִּמְפָרֵשׁ כִּדְתַנְיָא שָׁלַח לוֹ אָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת חוֹזֶרֶת לוֹ שָׁלַח אָבִיו שׁוֹשְׁבִינוּת סְתָם כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת חוֹזֶרֶת לָאֶמְצַע Rabbi Asi says: Even if the text of the mishna is not emended, it is not difficult and can be reconciled with the baraita. Here in the mishna it is referring to where the father sent the gifts of groomsmen without specifying which son should be ascribed credit for bringing the gifts. There in the baraita, it is referring to where the father specified that the credit for the gifts of groomsmen should be ascribed to a specific son, who receives gifts in return, as it is taught in another baraita: If his father sent gifts of groomsmen on his, i.e., the son’s, behalf, then when the gift is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to him, i.e., to that specific son. If his father sent gifts of groomsmen without specification, then when the gift is reciprocated, it is reciprocated to the middle.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר הָכָא בְּיָבָם עָסְקִינַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל בָּרָאוּי כִּבְמוּחְזָק And Shmuel says: Here in the mishna we are dealing with a man whose married brother died childless [yavam]. The son who brought the gifts of groomsmen died childless, his brother entered into levirate marriage with the widow, and the gifts of groomsmen were reciprocated at the wedding of the yavam. Although the yavam inherits the property of his brother, since the reciprocal gifts were not extant when his brother died, they do not belong solely to him; rather, they are divided among the brothers. This is because the yavam does not take in inheritance the property due the deceased as he does the property the deceased already possessed.
מִכְּלָל דְּאִידַּךְ מְשַׁלֵּם לֵימָא תְּנוּ לִי שׁוֹשְׁבִינִי וְאֶשְׂמַח עִמּוֹ The Gemara asks: Is it possible to conclude by inference from Shmuel’s statement that the other side, i.e., a friend who had received gifts of groomsmen from the deceased, is obligated to repay the gifts of groomsmen he received from the deceased? Why should this be so? Let him say: Give me my groomsman and I will rejoice with him. Since the one who gave him the gifts is deceased, he is not obligated to reciprocate.
מִי לָא תַּנְיָא מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַחְזִיר קִדּוּשִׁין מַחְזִירִין מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַחְזִיר אֵין מַחְזִירִין וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר מָר עוּקְבָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּתָה הִיא אֲבָל מֵת הוּא אֵין מַחְזִירִין מַאי טַעְמָא יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר Isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesaḥim 3:1) with regard to similar circumstances: In a place where people are accustomed to return the betrothal money when the betrothed man or woman dies, they return it; in a place where people are accustomed not to return it, they do not return it. And Rav Yosef bar Abba says that Mar Ukva says that Shmuel says: They taught this only with regard to when the woman dies, in which case one follows the local custom. But if the man dies, all agree that they do not return the money. What is the reason for this? Since she can say: